Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future

Definition of Negative Human Rights - i.e. the very foundation of the freedom part of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948.

Most people today are Atheists (i.e. not "believing" in a "god"*). That fact paves the way for Human Rights equality. Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women) Human Rights equality.

* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").

Saudi muslim war criminal and Human-rightsophobe is loved by BBC

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

This is what BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain "forgot" to report. Mishal grew up in the very same theocratic medieval dictatorship which now harbors and rules all muslims world organization OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia. While also spreading islamic hatred over the world through a variety of channels.

Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:

True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).

Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017

So let's face islam with this definition.

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").

And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.

* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is Mrs Theresa May digging a miserable "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff?

Mrs May plays sharia with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - skipping Human Rights. Right?

Saudi islamofascism attacks Buddhists - again and again - backed by Mrs May.

When will the world finally turn on the hateful Saudi dictator family - rather than on its victims?

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.

It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!

Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Today England's parliament vote between islamofascist sharia and Human Rights - without even mentioning sharia. Shame on you England, to even have to vote about it!


While Theresa May tries to pave the way for islamofascist Saudi friendly sharia by trashing Human Rights, BBC fills its news with the suffering of Rohyngia muslims - without a word about the Saudi backed muslim terrorist attacks against Buddhists that preceded it.


Theresa May wants to strip the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the UK statue book when Britain leaves the EU.



Individual rights to privacy, equality, freedom of expression, fair working conditions, a fair trial, access to a lawyer and the protection of personal data are all in potential jeopardy. However, the most importantissue is that removing the charter means paving the way for islamofascist sharia.


Here some reasons Theresa May doesn't like Human Rights


Parliamentary questions
16 March 2012   
E-001065/2012

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

1. As the Commission has pointed out in its reply to Question E‑9450/2011(1), ‘sharia’ is a general concept that encompasses several legal aspects and is subject to varying interpretations both in the countries where it is applied and among specialists. The Commission is committed to ensuring that any EU legislation as well as the Member States, when implementing Union law, respect the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In areas beyond EC law, it is for Member States alone to safeguard the respect of fundamental rights, in accordance with their national laws and international obligations.

2. Private international law rules in force in the Member States, including those based on EC law, may lead to the application of a foreign law which is based on sharia law. However, these private international law rules in general provide for a possibility not to apply a provision of the designated foreign law which is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the Member State concerned.

3. Freedom of association is a basic principle of EC law and national laws as well. The Commission does not have the power under the Treaties to prohibit that sharia court like organisations exercise cultural, social and other activities. Nevertheless, the ‘decisions’ of these organisations cannot be considered as arbitration awards, do not have a judicial character and can be recognised and enforced only on the basis of national laws.

4-5. There are safeguards in place in EC law (Rome I Regulation, Rome II Regulation and the draft Rome III Regulation). Consequently, those parts of sharia law which are not compatible with EU fundamental rights standards will not be applied, and those foreign judicial decisions, which are based on provisions of sharia law that are incompatible with these standards will not be recognised and enforced in the EU.


Luzius Wildhaber, President of the European Court of Human Rights:

Paradoxically, although most people profess their commitment to democracy, it is in many ways an imprecise notion with an apparent weakness that is capable of causing it to
buckle under pressure and even, as history shows, to do away with itself. The reason for this is that, by definition, democracy seeks to satisfy the aspirations of the greatest number. Such aspirations are, however, often changeable and even contradictory, a factor which in turn leads to a growing number of compromises and increasingly complex mediation,
whose impact on the system itself will not always be measurable. The former President of the German Constitutional Court recently noted in this connection that democracy is
subjected to constant pressure, as its divergent forces interact to create an unstable equilibrium. This, undoubtedly, is especially true at times of crisis, when democracy gives
the impression of struggling to meet the rush of challenges posed by globalisation,recession and terrorism.

It is in this domain that the Court, aided by the pan-European consensus provided by the Convention, has a role to play in identifying the constituent elements of democracy and in
reminding everyone of the minimum essential requirements of a political system if human rights within the meaning of the Convention are to be protected. It has in the past applied
itself to establishing the basic principles of the rule of law, the role of political parties, and the limits on freedom of political expression and parliamentary immunity. In Refah Partisi, it carried out a thorough examination of the relationship between the Convention, democracy, political parties and religion, and found that a sharia-based regime was
incompatible with the Convention, in particular, as regards the rules of criminal law and procedure, the place given to women in the legal order and its interference in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

That said, a truly democratic society can also be recognised by the attention it gives to the weakest and poorest of its members, as the preamble to the draft Constitution of the
European Union helpfully reminds us. It is in this context that the Court’s judgments dealing with the plight of ordinary people rather than universal principles come into their
own. The second of the cases mentioned above, that of Mr Jakupovic, provides a striking illustration of this type of judgment through its discreet testimony to the despair of the
victims of the war in the Balkans, a genuine collective tragedy in present-day Europe.

The case concerned a young national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who, when war broke out and at the age of 11, travelled with his brother to join their mother, who was living in
Austria. Once there, he became involved in petty crime for which he was given two suspended prison sentences and banned from Austria for ten years. At the age of 16, he was
deported alone to the war-torn country of his birth where he no longer had any close relatives, his father having been officially declared missing since the end of the armed
conflict. An all-too-common story when all is said and done, but one which the Court found by four votes to three amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

This review of the past year would not be complete, however, without a reference to the worrying increase in the Court’s backlog, which puts the survival of the entire Convention
system at risk. The figures, which are reproduced in the pages dealing with the Court’s statistics, could hardly be more eloquent. This well-known phenomenon has various causes,
arising as they do at all the stages through which each case passes, from recourse to domestic remedies to the execution of the Court’s judgments. For this reason, the draft
proposals for the reform of the system currently under review by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe contain recommendations for appropriate remedial
action at each stage.

Leaving aside the specifics of the proposed solutions, the important point, however, is that, as the Council of Ministers stated in May 2003, “the European Convention on Human
Rights [remains] the essential reference point for the protection of human rights in Europe”. Only the Convention offers a truly pan-European understanding, free of regionalism and particularism, of the fundamental rights of every human being. It is a priceless asset.




Thursday, November 16, 2017

Peter Klevius' 1986 experimental* zero budget refugee film/video about Vietnamese refugees in cooperation with a local Finnish amateur band.


* Although this was a failure it had some spirit built in. However, like so many other of Klevius failures it was anachronistic, i.e. Klevius' mental impairment (i.e. extremely high IQ) makes it sometimes difficult (and fun) to live in a now that is felt almost medievel in Klevius mind (see e.g. 'inside Klevius mind' on Klevius' web-museum that isn't touched upon in 15 years).


A mid 1980s nostalgia trip



The Vietnamese refugees were a result of Communism vs Capitalism. However, the muslim refugees is a result of islam (Saudi) vs islam (Iran).
Saudi islam sits on "the holy places" it has buried under concrete and mosques, it sits on lots of oil/gas, it speaks Arabic as its muslim neighbors, and the Saudis are protected by by US and other Western powers, whereas Iran is a much lesser threat and could act as a balancing peaceful power if offered some opportunities. The Iranian people are less fanatic and more "normal" than the Saudis who are dependent on a medieval dictatorship - now steered by what is often described by analysts as "the world's most dangerous man".

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is the cause of most muslim refugees. So when will the most dangerous nation on the planet be treated as they deserve to be by BBC?!


BBC is all about muslim refugees and "refugees" from the world's biggest single nation (the muslim Umma). BBC also keeps describing muslims as "minorities" when in fact the muslim Umma's population exceeds that of China. In this respect there's not a single country where muslims are in minority because they are always backed by the Umma (e.g. via Saudi based  and steered OIC) plus, in the majority of cases, the ruling class in the country they happen to be. This feeds into muslim supremacism racism and sexism, and makes integration and respect for Human Rights equality less likely.

So here's an alternative refugee video to the muslim ones BBC feeds you with.

A mid 1980s nostalgia trip


Nights in Saigon

Someone has uploaded a poor quality VHS copy version of an experimental music video that should have been buried equally well as the non-existing islamic "holy places"*. It was written, directed, filmed, edited and screwed up by Peter Klevius - with most of the "footwork" done by those in the video (the band and some Vietnamese refugees). It was originally made on high resolution 16 mm film with an old handheld Canon Scoopic without sound syncronization. The total raw film to edit from was less than 9 minutes, i.e. half of the final product. The "actors" were themselves both refugees and amateurs and no other money (except a small sum to the refugees) was spent on the video except for a few small rolls of film. So no room for additional takes/directing or fancy editing. All scenes were just filmed once. It was a technical challenge that failed - but a goodwill gesture to true refugees. Some of the band members were initially slightly chocked about Klevius manuscript, cause they seemed to have had a different story in mind.

Plot: A Vietnamese family tries to escape but a helicopter has already spotted them. They decide to take different paths so the woman and the child go by boat while the man gets caught by a soldier whom we see taking drugs and watching a photo of his little son. The film turns from b/w to color and we now see the grown up son with his guitar and a sign in the background reading "make love, not war". The little refugee girl has now matured and is seen on the balcony of a tower block. The guitarist arrives in a helicopter and is seen driving away in a Finnish made Saab Cabriolet Turbo (considered fancy back then). The band is then showed playing at a place where the Vietnamese girl is among the crowd. When the guitarist jumps forward for his solo performance she is chocked to see a similar face as the one that killed her father. She runs out.

Klevius takes credit for most of the many flaws but some of the attires and pics in the video are concessions to wishes of the band and do not necessarily always comply with Klevius view.

But the "cast" and the band did a great job and the guitarist acted well in his double role as the addicted Vietnam veteran from the 1970s and his guitar playing son a generation later. Same guy also filmed the creek shot from the helicopter his army friend kindly let him enter.

Everything was filmed in Borgå (Porvoo), a Viking** town in Southern Finland.

* The islamofascist Saudi dictator family has deliberately buried Mohammad's and his associates "graves" etc. well knowing that they dudn't exist in the first place. And to do this they used enormous amount of concrete to cover it up and then "sealed" it by building "holy mosques" on top of them. Moreover, in this respect they claimed islam as a "religion" against "idolatry" although islam is the ideology most keen on idolatry, e.g. Meca bowing, Kaba circulation, Mina stonings, etc. etc.


** It's said that the Viking Helsing gave name to Helsingfors (Helsinki in Finnish), Sibbe to Sibbo east of Helsingfors, and Borg to Borgå (Porvoo in Finnish). 'Fors' means stream or waterfall, and 'å' (or 'o' in Sibbo) means creek - see Origin of the Vikings.


Wednesday, November 15, 2017

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.

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.



.

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Brexisharia trouble with back-doors, back-benches - and a close muslim madman ally.


Cliffhanger Theresa May's "important ally" in Mideast, is playing with the islamofascist fuse at the point where she had planned to land. 

The islamofascist Saudi "prince" seems more than ready to throw more fuel on the already heavy fire in Mideast. However, instead of backing this madman West should negotiate the Israel issue with Iran and thereby balance out the  "custodian of islam"'s disastrous campaign in the region and beyond.
  

No dude, it's not Fawlty Towers - it's Fawlty Tory

No wonder she looks worried.


But perhaps this jolly good fellow could cheer her up.

Theresa May wants to leave EU -  while also leaving the Irish back door open - to EU. Brexit means...?
.

Thursday, November 02, 2017

Klevius suggestion to Theresa May: As you are such a friend of sharia islam - why not introduce sharia sex segregation in your cabinet - and fill it with (muslim?) women only.


Who is a muslim? Human Rights violating sharia muslims or "muslims" who respect non-muslims as truly equals?


No matter how nice a muslim, s/he will erode your Human Rihgts if s/he, consciously or unconsciously, supports Saudi OIC and its world sharia which always takes precedence over Human Rights - because the worst crime in sharia islam is to leave islam, meaning sharia islam is a one way reproductive road that can only grow -  at the expense of your Human Rights - making you a second class citizen. Only "Western" secularism and Human Rights can make it possible for born-muslims to free themselves from these Human Rights violating shackles. At the cost of being labeled by the "muslim community" and their families/relatives etc.

And if you are a woman and convert to sharia islam you immediately loose your most basic Human Rights and face disaster if you want to leave. This is what "freedom of religion" means in sharia islam. What every non-sharia "muslim" need to do is to openly dismiss Human Rights violating sharia.

Who is a "Brit"? Based on Theresa May's approach a "Brit" seems to be someone who loves sharia but hates EU citizens


A government colluding with the worst scum on Earth ought to be called 'extremist', right?


The islamofascist Saudi dictator family has been the core tumor of the cancer spreading from Mideast.

The act of labeling a person, group or action as extremist is sometimes claimed to be a technique to further a political goal—especially by governments seeking to defend the status quo. It's also claimed that the term extremist cannot be regarded as value-neutral. However, Human Rights equality as outlined in the 1948 anti-fascist Human Rights declaration, does fulfill the criterion of being value-free, precisely because it excludes values as a means for imposing limitations of rights or imposing 'duties' and 'responsibilities' on some people (e.g. women, "infidels" etc).

Is it a dream or do we really now in 2017 live in a climate where the worst Human Rights abusers are not only protected by the devil's lawyers abusing Human Rights but also representing them?!

And the hate and war crimes spreading islamofascist Saudi dictator family sits in United Nations Human Rights departments!

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family is "investigating" its own war crimes!

Saudi Ambassador in Geneva Abdulaziz Al-Wasil said that time was not right to form an independent commission of inquiry into human rights violations in Yemen. He added that the Houthis and forces loyal to ousted President Ali Abdullah Saleh were also committing war crimes.

.