"Diversity" politics in UK: Sharia islam now officially took over London with just 13% of the votes in a city with about the same % of muslims.

Klevius question: How come that "blasphemy" Pakistan's sharia muslims are so popular in BBC and Labour?

BBC's muslim presenter Mishal Husain stands as the perfect sharia deceiver.

She doesn't respect the Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol etc. etc. and she states that she feels no threat to her way of leading her life as someone who doesn't differ from non-muslims.

Well, says Klevius, that's just fine - as long as you don't give the impression that such a "muslimhood" has anything to do with real sharia muslims. Moreover, isn's it a cruel and cynicak spitting in the face of all those women who are raped, murdered , abused etc. because of sharia supremacist hate mongering?

While the majority of Brits and Londoners are against sharia islam - just like in France and Germany -a sharia islamism supporting muslim was elected mayor. A shame for the free civilized world!

Sadiq Khan, the son of Pakistani immigrants and a practicing (unlike BBC's alcohol drinking and Ramadan disrespecting house muslim Mishal Husain) sharia supporting muslim and Labour Party politician, has been elected mayor of London.

Cameron and the Women’s Equality Party may now both celebrate:

1 Cameron got what he wanted: Making London the sharia capital outside Mideast. Sadiq Khan will bring in the "foreign investors".

2 The Women’s Equality Party has for long refused to take a line on islamofascist sharia law in Britain. However, the Women’s Equality Party doesn't need to hesitate any longer on its stance on Human Rights violating sharia. They can now submit to sharia islamofascism in peace.

Sadiq Khan has a clean track record that clearly reveals an agenda that consistently goes just opposite what Theresa May defined as "British values". It was certainly no coincidence that he happened to defend one of the world's most notorious racists, the black supremacist hate mongering Farrakhan.

Klevius wrote:

Saturday, September 12, 2015

Sharia compliant British socialists want a sharia muslim to lead London and an "islamophobe" hater to lead UK.

 Labour voted for sharia islamization of UK - with a muslim population of less than 5%

 Should a sharia muslim (i.e. someone who is against basic Human Rights) head London?

  Racist black hate mongering supremacist Farrakhan and his legal aids.

Hate mongering racist supremacist hate group Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan with his racist supporters.

Nation of Islam's very racist hateful core idea is that "whites" are evil devils while "blacks" are "god's" chosen people. No other race is as good as "blacks" according to just one of the unbelievable fantasies from which Farrakhan's muslim hate organization emerged.


Before entering the House of Commons in 2005, Khan practised as a solicitor.

During his legal career he acted against the London police and was involved in many "diversity" cases:

    Bubbins vs The United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights – shooting of an unarmed individual by police marksmen).
    HSU and Thompson v Met Police (wrongful arrest/police damages)
    Reeves v Met Police (duty of care to prisoners)
    Murray v CAB (discrimination)
    Ahmed v University of Oxford (racial discrimination against a student)
    Dr Jadhav v Secretary of State for Health (racial discrimination in the employment of Indian doctors by the health service)
    CI Logan v Met Police (racial discrimination)
    Supt Dizaei v Met Police (police damages, discrimination)
    Inquest into the death of David Rocky Bennett (use of restraints)
    Lead solicitor on Mayday demonstration 2001 test case litigation (Human Rights Act)
    Farakhan v Home Secretary (Human Rights Act)
    In February 2000, Khan represented a group of Kurdish actors who were arrested by Metropolitan Police during a rehearsal of the Harold Pinter play Mountain Language, securing £150,000 in damages   for the group for wrongful arrest and the trauma caused by their arrest.
    McDowell and Taylor v Met Police: Leroy McDowell and Wayne Taylor successfully sued the Metropolitan Police for assault and false imprisonment.


On 3 February 2008, The Sunday Times claimed that a conversation between Khan and prisoner Babar Ahmad – a constituent accused and later convicted of involvement in terrorism – at Woodhill Prison in Milton Keynes had been bugged by the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch. An inquiry was launched by the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw (Labour).

There was concern that the bugging contravened the Wilson Doctrine that police should not bug MPs. The report concluded that the doctrine did not apply because it affected only bugging requiring approval by the Home Secretary, while in Khan's case the monitoring was authorised by a senior police officer. The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith (Labour), then announced a further policy review and said the bugging of discussions between MPs and their constituents should be banned.

In 2010, Khan was re-elected as the MP for Tooting despite a swing against his party of 3.6% and a halving of his previous majority. In the subsequent Labour leadership election Khan was an early backer of Ed Miliband, becoming his campaign manager. Khan masterminded Miliband's win over his elder brother David, and was tipped as a future rising star of the Labour Party, jumping 82 places in one year to 16th in The Daily Telegraph's 'top 100 most influential left-wingers' poll'.

In April 2010 it was revealed that Khan had repaid falsely claimed expenses on two occasions, when literature was sent to his constituents. The first incident concerned letters sent out before the 2010 General Election which were ruled to have the "unintentional effect of promoting his return to office", the second a £2,550 repayment for Christmas, Eid, and birthday cards for constituents, dating back to 2006. Under House of Commons rules, pre-paid envelopes and official stationery can only be used for official parliamentary business.

Khan's claim for the greetings cards was initially rejected, but he presented a new invoice no longer identifying the nature of the claim, and this was accepted. Khan attributed the improper claim for the cards to "inexperience" and human error and apologised for breaking the expenses rules.

At the 2015 general election, Khan was returned for a third term as MP for Tooting, defeating his Conservative rival by 2,842 votes.[3] He was one of 36 Labour MPs to nominate Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate in the Labour leadership election of 2015, but has said that he was "no patsy" to Mr Corbyn and would stand up to him.

Following Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Cabinet reshuffle of 3 October 2008, Khan was appointed Minister of State for Communities, replacing Parmjit Dhanda, and becoming the second Muslim to serve in Her Majesty's Government. Before the House of Commons in January 2009, Khan criticised the Pope for the rehabilitation of Bishop Richard Williamson following his remarks about the Holocaust, a move he described as "highly unsavoury" and of "great concern".

In 2009, he became the first Muslim to attend Cabinet upon his appointment as Minister of State for Transport.[42] In what was believed to be a first for an MP, Khan used his Twitter account to self-announce his promotion as Transport Secretary.

In March 2010, Khan publicly stated that for a second successive year he would not be taking a pay rise as an MP or Minister, declaring "At a time when many people in Tooting and throughout the country are having to accept pay freezes I don't think it's appropriate for MPs to accept a pay rise." For his first fifteen months' service in HM Government, he chose not to draw a ministerial incremental salary, having made sufficient money as a lawyer.
Shadow Cabinet

In the wake of Labour's 2010 election defeat, Acting Leader Harriet Harman appointed Khan Shadow Secretary of State for Transport.

After running Ed Miliband's successful leadership campaign, Khan was previously rewarded with the senior roles of Shadow Lord Chancellor and Shadow Justice (sharia?) Secretary. He was advanced as Shadow Minister for London, in addition to his other responsibilities, in 2013.


Klevius conclusion: There's absolutely nothing that points to Sadiq Khan being anything else than a sharia islam supporting muslim. Poor you Londoners - especially women! But you have yourself to blame. Feminism is defined by itself as a movement that is incapable of criticizing women. This is its theoretical foundation of feminism, i.e. to be segregated.

Klevius once wrote a PhD thesis criticizing this aspect of feminism which leads to the paradoxical conclusion that feminist theory that strives to hear "women's voices" shuts its ears to voices from women who break the sex segregation barrier on which feminism is defined. So called "muslim feminism" hence constitutes the ultimate sharia feminism, i.e. sex apartheid. Ayaan Hirsi Ali jumped the barrier - and was declared pariah among true feminists although dumb journalists kept calling her a "feminist".

Ryan can't endorse Trump - because that would be against sharia and the Saudi dictator family

Why didn't BBC publish this?

Klevius: People entangled with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and/or* its rape accused Wall Street terrorist scumbag Alwaleed bin Talal, usually have problems endorsing Trump.

 * Muslim rape accused scumbag Alwaleed bin Talal in essence constitutes the Saudi dictator state's unofficial department for spreading islamofascist hate mongering around the world by channelling Saudi oil funds - especially targetting media, education and politicians.

Paul Ryan unmasked:

 By declaring that it would not be “proper” or “appropriate” for the United States to consider the religion of a visa applicant— or whether the applicant supports Sharia law or Muslim theocracy— Ryan is effectively suggesting that the United States should not be allowed to select whom we admit based on likelihood of assimilation.

This view is consistent with Ryan’s two decade long history of pushing open borders immigration policies. As NumbersUSA President Roy Beck has said, “[Ryan] has spent his entire adulthood ideologically connected to the open borders crowd. Open Borders is in his ideological DNA… Open borders seeps out of every pore of his being… It’s just who he is.”

In 2013, Ryan insisted that it is the job of a U.S. lawmaker to put oneself in the shoes of a foreign national—who does not live in the United States, but would like to come here— and then work to find solutions to improve the life of that foreign citizen:

    Put yourself in another person’s shoes, which if you’re in elected office, that’s what you kind of have to do that almost every single day. The job we have– and what we do is we take different people’s perspectives. The gentleman from India who’s waiting for his green card… We take all these different perspectives. We process it through our values and our morals and our principles. And then we come up with the answer to try and solve this problem. That’s basically what we do in our jobs.

Indeed, Ryan was instrumental in defeating an effort to cut visa issuances during the mid-90s, thus derailing the effort to codify into law Civil Rights leader Barbara Jordan’s plan for substantial immigration cuts in order to protect the American worker. As Game Change author John Heilemann wrote in 1996, “[Ryan’s] ties to the pro-immigration mafia ran deep.”

Hannity pressed Ryan specifically about the House’s legislation that will allow Obama to continue the Syrian refugee resettlement plan, which is opposed by a majority of all voters. Hannity asked Ryan about Babin’s amendment, which as Breitbart News reported, was “blocked [tonight] by House Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) – that would have placed a six-month moratorium on allowing refugees into the United States.”

Hannity asked:

    Are you including the Babin amendment, which would put a pause for six months on it, or are you not including that part [to the House’s legislation]?

Ryan replied:

    This would put a pause, I believe, for longer than that. This effectively puts a pause on the program and it will take longer than six months, I believe, to put these kind of security…

However, Sen. Sessions specifically debunked this claim in a statement released earlier on Wednesday. Sessions explained that Ryan’s plan—far from blocking Obama’s refugee resettlement project—would allow for unlimited immigration and does nothing to strengthen the security of the American people:

    The current proposal being considered in the House in response to the President’s dangerous refugee plan – the American SAFE Act – fails to defend the interests of the American people… The American SAFE Act allows the President to continue to bring in as many refugees as he wants from anywhere in the world. With respect to Syria and Iraq, the American SAFE Act requires only that the President direct his Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, and FBI Director (all his appointees) to sign off on the administration’s screening process – a process that the White House continually asserts is adequate and ‘ensures safety.’ The plain fact is that this bill transfers the prerogative from Congress to President Obama and ensures the President’s refugee resettlement initiative will continue unabated.

NumbersUSA, a pro-security immigration group, echoed Sessions’ criticism of the Ryan’s plan:

    NumbersUSA is extremely disappointed in the legislation that the House intends to put on the floor on Thursday to respond to the threat of Islamic State-inspired terrorists infiltrating the refugee flow to the United States… Instead of legislating that pause, or even bringing to the floor an existing bill (H.R. 3314 by Rep. Babin) that would pause the refugee flow, the House instead will vote to cede its responsibility for America’s safety to the FBI, the DNI, and DHS in the hopes that they can pick and choose correctly from a limited number of “covered” aliens.

In the interview, however, Ryan seemed determined to convey that the House’s bill would, in fact, “pause” refugee resettlement—despite the contrary analyses of Sen. Sessions and NumbersUSA.

Throughout the course of the short interview, Ryan specifically declared seven times that the House’s legislation would “pause” refugee resettlement.

Breitbart News has compiled Ryan’s uses of the word “pause” throughout the interview:

    He [Obama] just said he’s going to veto our bill putting a pause on the refugee program… We obviously know that ISIS wants to infiltrate the refugee population, that’s very clear, so we need to put a pause on this program… We have to put this bill in place which pauses the program effectively… This [legislation] would put a pause, I believe, for longer than [the Babin measure]. This effectively puts a pause on the program and it will take longer than six months, I believe, to put [in place] these kinds of security… The FBI cannot right now certify these standards, so this [legislation] does pause the program… We are asking all of our colleagues to support fixing this— pausing this— and getting this right.

Ryan’s emphatic insistence that the legislation will “pause” the refugee resettlement program may be fueled by polling data, which shows that the American people overwhelmingly want to see the program blocked.

As Hannity explained:

    Here’s my question though… Why don’t we just cancel it? Why don’t we just say, ‘You cannot come here, it’s too big a risk to the American people.’ I don’t think we can fully ascertain what’s in people’s hearts. I don’t think anybody can assure us that ISIS wouldn’t lie and create documents and the document trail, I think they would do anything to get here. Why don’t we just end the program and that might mean defunding the program. Wouldn’t that be a better idea? […] We have two polls— two polls that are out that show two-to-one the American people are against Obama bringing in Syrian refugees altogether. I would prefer— I don’t know if we can really fully vet anybody like this. Nor do we have the resources. I personally am of the belief that we shouldn’t taking them in. I think it’s too big a risk.

Ryan said, in part, that the reason the program could not simply be canceled is because, “We’re a compassionate country. The refugees laws are important laws and we don’t want terrorists to dictate how we run—whether we have a law or not.”

While throughout the interview Ryan seemed to ground his argument on the premise that we cannot apply a religious test as a basis for admissions to the United States, both Rush Limbaugh and Andrew McCarthy have explained how U.S. law does, in fact, require a religious test when it comes to making considerations about visa issuances.

McCarthy explained:

    Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant. Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion: The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.] The law requires a “religious test… it is downright dishonest to claim that taking such religious distinctions into account is “not American”…  How can something American law requires be “not American”?

Limbaugh said:

    When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are.  We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”  I would venture to say that virtually everybody who hears him say that probably has to nod their head in agreement.  “Yeah, yeah, that’s probably right.”  Except you’d all be wrong…  It’s in federal law.  There are religious tests and requirements through the United States law.. the law requires a religious test, and the reason for the religious test is obvious… Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion directed by law, not a whim to address persecution… There is no right to emigrate to the United States of America… Nowhere does the law say we must put ourselves at risk in order to exercise this compassion…Therefore, us — we — by maintaining our standards as established by law, protecting our national security and sovereignty are not violating anybody’s rights by standing up for our own.

Moreover, a provision in the Immigration and Naturalization Act states, “In general – any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the communist or other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.”

This arguably could apply to individuals who hold theocratic or totalitarian ideologies. In fact, in recent video footage captured on the streets of Cedar Riverside, Minnesota, showed a number of U.S. Muslims explaining that they preferred Sharia Law to American law.

Regardless, every year, under Ryan’s vision the United States can expect to continue to bring in two Muslim migrants for every one Iowa Republican primary voter. According to Pew, by 2040, the United States’ Muslim population is expected to surpass the nation’s Jewish population. It is unlikely that the Muslim migrants brought in under the nation’s current federal policy will support Ryan’s limited government platform as only 11% of U.S. Muslim, according to Pew, are Republican or lean-Republican. Ryan’s continued support for the visa gusher, however, is consistent with his past statements on the matter.

When radio talk show host David Webb asked Ryan last year whether he thought, “immigrants from the third world are more likely or less likely to support conservative policies,” Ryan answered that he thought “immigrants from the third world” were “some of the best Americans”.

Ryan declared:

    Some of the best Americans are the newest Americans. People who left former Communist countries, people who left scandalous nations that are crony capitalism that deny them their rights. So people who come from those kinds of systems and those kinds of governments can make the best patriots because they finally see and taste what freedom is like, and they want to fight for it. So that kind of a person can make the best American. And the way I look at it, from our Party’s perspective, is we have to do a better job of going into these communities and exposing people to a different mindset– to these principles that they may not even have ever heard or seen before. This is a challenge that conservatives have to answer.

Klevius declared:  So Paul Ryan thinks sharia muslims want to fight for a non-sharia US Constitution. Really? Isn't it more likely that they continue to fight for a sharia US Constitution? With all means available. As they have relentlessly been doing all the time.

The first amendment doesn't protect sharia islamofascism although it's definitely the original islamic religion which started with the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina.

While Londoners open up for more sharia islamofascism by voting for Sadiq Khan, a clear majority of French people rejects islam

BBC News and their muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain have kept a very low profile about the possible election of a muslim sharia supporter as mayor of London. Wonder why?

 Poll in France: ‘Total Rejection’ Of Islam In France From All Across The Political Spectrum

    An Ifop poll for Le Figaro measuring perceptions of islam has found that people have a growing sense of unease about its role in France.

    What’s notable about the results is that where once such sentiments were perceived as the preserve of the “extreme right”, they are now felt across the political spectrum. Back in 2010, 39 per cent of Socialist Party voters felt Islam was too prominent within French society — a majority of 52 per cent feel this to be the case six years on.

    The poll also found that 47 per cent of people consider the presence of Muslim communities a threat to France’s identity, up five points from 2010. However, 19 per cent still believe muslims culturally enrich the country.

    Surveys by Ifop going back to 1989 have consistently measured attitudes toward aspects of islam in French society.

    In 1989 33 per cent of French people responded that they were “in favour” of building mosques, while the figure today is just 13 per cent . That year, 31 per cent were opposed to wearing the veil in general, a number that in 2016 has risen to 63 per cent.

     French people’s growing distrust of Islam’s role in the country comes as data from across Western Europe shows that rather than becoming more assimilated over time, the views of second and third generation muslims have become increasingly hardline. This is of course quite natural when considering the combination of inferiority complex over their muslim "homelands" and the support for sharia islam they get from Western politicians.

When does Europe get a powerful Trump card to play? The rule is simple: Don't accept Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration via UN which makes it possible for muslims to continue being hateful racists and sexists! Without sharia no "islamophobia".

Klevius wrote:

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Sharia muslim Sadiq Khan today bluntly avoided the two most imprtant questions - and BBC let him get away with it!

A sharia muslim extremist, Sadiq Khan, will soon rule London because of Labour support!

BBC: How will your muslim faith affect your work as a
Mayor of London?

Sadiq Khan: Bla bla bla...

 BBC: Do you gonna shut down sharia courts?

Sadiq Khan: Bla bla bla...

Klevius comment: Precisely because of what Klevius has written about the blurred line between so called "moderate muslims" and true sharia muslims (aka islamists) BBC wasn't able to push the questions further. But why do the Brits accept this extremist behavior of their own main media company?

Saturday, September 12, 2015

Sharia compliant British socialists want a sharia muslim to lead London and an "islamophobe" hater to lead UK.

 Labour voted for sharia islamization of UK - with a muslim population of less than 5%

 Should a sharia muslim (i.e. someone who is against basic Human Rights) head London?

  Racist black hate mongering supremacist Farrakhan and his legal aids.

Hate mongering racist supremacist hate group Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan with his racist supporters.

Nation of Islam's very racist hateful core idea is that "whites" are evil devils while "blacks" are "god's" chosen people. No other race is as good as "blacks" according to just one of the unbelievable fantasies from which Farrakhan's muslim hate organization emerged.


The founder of Nation of Islam, who actually existed - unlike the made up founder of islam

Drug dealer Wallie Wallace Dodd Fard Ford Farrad David Ali Mohammad (or whatever - i.e. the NOI foudner that Farrakhan forgot to refer to) was born somewhere and died somehow. He founded the fascist organization Nation of Islam in the period between World War 1 and 2 that saw all kinds of fascist movements appear. He became the head of the Chicago mosque in 1929, i.e. when Hitler led the growing National Socialist Party in Germany (by the help of his ability to evoke a sense of violated national pride - compare NOI). Already at the start NOI was connected with murders and suspicious disappearances. He himself also disappeared in 1934, most probably murdered by the next NOI leader, Eliah Muhammad, just as Hitler murdered his competitor Ernst Röhm.


 

Sharia muslim Sadiq Khan (who defended black supremacist hate group Fuhrer Louis Farrakhan) is chosen by Labour party as their candidate to become mayor of London.

Among those running against Sadiq Khan at the 2010 general election in Tooting was a Liberal Democrat candidate who was an Ahmadiyya muslim who are among the most persecuted and reviled, deemed to be heretics by most other muslims. Bigotry against Ahmadiyaa muslims was extended towards the Liberal Democrat candidate in Tooting. Indeed it was so strong that during the 2010 campaign it was reported that he was told not to come to an election hustings at Sadiq Khan’s own mosque – the Tooting Islamic Centre.

When a Conservative candidate arrived at the same mosque he was reportedly mistaken for the Ahmadiyya Liberal Democrat candidate. The Conservative candidate then had to be locked in a room at the back of the mosque by members of the mosque to safeguard him from attack.

Sadiq Khan uses the usual muslim tactics by not tackling the muslim sharia and jihad problem (i.e. islam's incompatibility with Human Rights) but instead to underplay it and deride legitimate concerns expressed about this.

Complaining about "islamophobia" is the cover under which islamofascism thrives.

If islam is squeezed to fit the most basic of Human Rights - i.e. abandoning Human Rights violating sharia - then that would mean the definitive cure against Klevius "islamophobia" - and the end of racist/sexist islam.

Jeremy Corbyn couldn't for his life first remember that he had welcomed this extremist muslim. Only under hard pressure did he later managed to recollect his suppressed memory. Is he demented or something much worse?

We need more "islamophobia" to protect our children - not criminalize it as Jeremy Corbyn (and the Saudi dictator family) wants!

 Raed Salah: Very soon, Muhammad will be the most popular name in Europe.

Klevius: Question is, will most of those Muhammads have dropped that name when realizing the difference between Human Rights and evil Muhammad islam?
And how many will keep it and proudly become jihadis fighting for islam, the worst ideological crime ever against humanity?

 Yes, Christians suffer under islam - but what about non-Christians?

 How many in this muslim invasion are sharia muslims? Bringing with them what other refugees are escaping.

The Saudi dictator family is the by far worst single cause to islamic evil in Mideast and elsewhere today. And because they own both media and politicians, average people are still equally ignorant about islam as were the two UK girls visiting Zanzibar. Here's from Klevius blog 2013:

Klevius: Yes, it's perfectly normal. What a pity no one has told you before. Islam is the very essence of ultimate racism! This is why muslims are so sensitive about criticism against islam while showing extreme contempt and insensitivity against others. And this is also why OIC (all muslims world organization) not only have abandoned and even criminalized Human Rights (via UN) but also made it a crime to criticize islam (the worst ideological crime history knows about).

Later these girls were attacked by, most probably the muslim sons, who threw acid in their face.

Klevius definition of islam: The faith refuge for racism and sexism (sharia) that can't pass the Human Rights test

Why do we allow* muslims to support Human Rights violating sharia?! Who else could get away with that without being criticized?!
 
* Under Human Rights people can anyway make consensual agreements but under sharia that is not an option because sharia is supposed to be "allah's" "will".

If you remove the racist and sexist parts of islam you are left with a castrated and crippled ideology and, Klevius would guess, with few, if any, (sharia) followers. It was precisely these evil parts that fueled the origin of islam and now keep Saudi and Islamic State islamofascism ticking.

Saudi Arabia suppresses and slaughters Shia muslims and non-muslims without anyone seeming to care.

The Saud dictator family demand (but not necessarily for themselves) strict Sunni islamic Wahhabism which states that muslims should return to the interpretation of islam found in the Koran and the Sunnah. They also believe that muslims who seek intercession from holy men—such as the Imams Shia revere—are not true muslims. While attempts to force conversion of Shia have been infrequent, Shia have alleged severe discrimination in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is also the home for all muslims' world organization OIC which is led by Iyad Madani, an islamofascist belonging to the Saud dictator family.

Calling oneself a true muslim automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani.

A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.

A disgusting (sharia) muslim and a heroic black Atheist Afro-American together reveal the deep bigotry and hypocricy of the muslim born (apostate?) Obama's administration

The islamofascist cancer has much deeper roots in the muslim Umma than BBC and other muslim owned or steered media want us to believe

A Pennsylvania imam who was fired last year by the Bureau of Prisons for his claims that author and Harvard lecturer Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserved to be killed under muslim sharia for apostatizing from islam recently led an interfaith prayer service after the ISIS attacks in Paris last November.

Fouad ElBayly, the imam at the Islamic Center of Johnstown, led the Nov. 21 prayer event, where he said:

    The Islamic Center of Johnstown and all the muslim communities in our region condemn the evil doing of the people who carried out that terrible attack against innocent people.

This is similar to the statements he made at a March 2002 prayer service for the 9/11 victims on United Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, PA, not far from ElBayly's mosque:

    Imam Fouad El Bayly of the Islamic Center of Johnstown and Somerset asked people to be tolerant. He said the muslim extremists who hijacked the plane also hijacked the Islamic faith.

    "In the name of God, in the name of peace, in the name of brotherhood, in the name of mankind, let there be peace," he said. "We cannot condemn a nation, a religion, for the acts of a few."

However, last year he was fired as a Bureau of Prisons chaplain at the Federal Correctional Institute of Cumberland, MD, after it was reported he was hired under a $10,500 February 2014 federal contract despite his 2007 comments calling for the murdering of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. He later received another $2,400 contract to teach islam in the same federal prison in December 2014.

In January, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to the Bureau of Prisons inquiring about the flaws in their hiring process that led to ElBayly's employment.

After it was revealed that ElBayly had been hired, Hirsi Ali  expressed her surprise that the muslim imam who had threatened her with death was now employed by the Justice Department, i.e. Loretta Lynch.

Klevius: Congratulations Leicester City M.F.C.* - how much will you share with Leicester City W.F.C.?

Again, something BBC forgot to tell. But Klevius assists as usual.

* Why is the men's section called Leicester City Football Club while the women's section is called Leicester City Women Football Club?

A Buddhist Atheist paved the way for the football success of one of England's most religiously "diverse" cities.

Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, Leicester's owner, is reported to be a devout Buddhist. And Buddhism is Atheism, i.e. without a "god" of any sort.

Klevius question: Would the Leicester City Women Football Club also need some Buddhist Atheism - and share the money? Or are they just happy enough with the men's success...

After all, Leicester has a pretty lousy profile on women's Human Rights. At least at the religious parts of the University of Leicester.


Some previous reflexions on the topic:

The shameful contamination of British universities with religious fanatism

Guardian:  The University of Leicester has launched an investigation into gender segregation (sic) at a public lecture held by its student Islamic society.

    The talk, entitled Does God Exist?, featured a guest speaker Hamza Tzortzis as part of an Islamic Awareness week. Seating at the event was segregated, with different entrances into the lecture theatre for men and women. . .

    In Leicester, more than 100 students attended the segregated event, which took place last month. A photograph passed to the Guardian shows signs put up in a university building, directing the segregation.

    A message on the group’s website says: “In all our events, [the society] operate a strict policy of segregated seating between males and females.” The statement was removed after the Guardian contacted the society.


Klevius comment: Again this confused and irrational oxymoron 'gender segregation'. The sign on the wall of Leicester University clearly states 'males' and 'females'. It means biological sex, not cultural gender!



Rupert Sutton, from the campus watchdog Student Rights: There is a consistent use of segregation by student of islamic societies across the country. While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on female students to conform and obey these rules that encourage subjugation should not be underestimated.

Klevius: Although islam is by far the worst culprit when it comes to sex apartheid, there is also a consistent low level general use of sex segregation "light" across the world. While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on females (not the least by other females) to conform and obey to sex segregation that encourages subjugation should not be underestimated.

 Leicester University is one of the world's most sexist (i.e. islamized) universities. You may not believe me but the truth is (an other professor witnessed it) that a female professor, Barbara Misztal (an East European immigrant? as BBC uses to put it), when presented with criticism against islam's rejection of women's full Human Rights via Sharia, said "Why don't you want to let women lead their lives as they wish". Yes, you got it right. She saw Sharia restrictions of women's rights as a right! Why hasn't anyone taught her that impositions are not rights, and that Human Rights don't hinder muslim women from choosing to live under these impositions whereas Sharia denies them the choice to freedom. Moreover, she also blamed the messenger for not allowing women to NOT HAVE THEIR FULL RIGHTS!

Barbara Misztal's  female students need to know this, and as usual, it seems that Klevius is the only one daring to really address this ultimate and extremely disastrous and even dangerous sexism.

Sharia sex segregation or Human Rights for girls/women?

In every possible form of Sharia girls/women are forced to lead their lives in sex apartheid of varying degrees. And that includes OIC's all muslims covering Sharia law via UN. But according to Human Rights every girl/woman has the right to decide herself what kind of life she wants to lead - incl. a sex segregated life if she so wishes. So to live in a society where Sharia rules doesn't really give any fair options.

In islam women and non-muslims are all "infidels", and the only thing that really distinguishes a woman as muslim is her "duty" towards islam to reproduce (physically and/or culturally) as many new muslims as possible - and of course to have the Sharia duty to serve as a sex slave for her muslim husband.

Isn't that funny, muslims need a law to get sex while for me such compulsory sex equals rape!

Obama laughs while he supports bloodshed in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain etc.

You won't hear this from the compulsory license fee fed islamist BBC - only from the completely free of charge BBC News edited by Klevius!

Why is Obama supporting the Islamic State's terror regime in Aleppo?

 Russia has formally requested that the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) add Ahrar al-Sham and Jaish al-Islam to its list of sanctioned organizations because they “are closely linked to terrorist organizations, first of all Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, and provide and receive from them financial, material, technical and military support.”

This would allow Syria and its allies to make the case for offensive military operations against them, even during a cessation of hostilities, under UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

As it stands now the Saudi dictator family and its backers (e.g. Obama administration) protect the Islamic State in Aleppo by calling these other islamists "rebels" against Assad.

These Salafi groups ought to be excluded from negotiations about Syria’s future, given their islamofascist ideology. The so called “moderate" head of the Syrian opposition’s High Negotiations Committee (formed in Riyadh), Mohammad Alloush, is also the leader of Jaish al-Islam.

Alloush’s father, Zahran Alloush, was described by a former US official as an “ambitious Islamist commander” in an article about a resurgent “moderate” opposition in 2014. However, Zahran Alloush was an apocalyptic sectarian hater who warned Shiites that “the Umayyad had previously broken your heads, the Levantines will break them again, you impure rejectionists”.

Obama and Kerry are well aware of Ahrar al-Sham’s and Jaish al-Islam’s collaboration with Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, and both groups’ radical Islamic ideology, which barely differs from that of Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State and has little foundation or appeal among the vast majority of Syrians. These groups are fully backed by the Saudi dictator family, Turkey and Qatar for the sole purpose of getting rid of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad - no matter how much the Syrian people suffer.

There simply isn't a popular support of these Saudi and Turkey backed Salafi groups in Syria.

Hillary Clinton will be a mouth bite for Trump compared to his fight against Cruz and the Republican convent.

Klevius serves some bites that BBC and their muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain might forget to inform you about - such as for example Hillary's sharia compliancy.

Why? Because sharia is against women's full Human Rights!

Klevius analysis of (or suggestion for) Trump's campaign:

1 Getting headlines - done
2 Getting the rightwingers on board - partially done
3 Starting talking to right leaning democrats.
4 Pointing at Hillary's email scandal, Bengazi scandal,
5 Talking to women who fear sharia incl. pointing to Hillary's Muslim Brotherhood advisor etc.
6 Pointing at Hillary's "blasphemy" cooperation with OIC (see below).

Trump's own track record and his campaign against sharia islam, both favor women

Trump's messages about women represent a tangle of views, said Stanley Renshon, a political psychologist (Hillary supporter, no doubt) at the City University of New York:

There's the Trump who has no qualms about advancing women within his business enterprises, the Trump who disparages women just because "I can say whatever comes to mind," and the retrograde Trump who never outgrew an adolescent fixation with desirable and beautiful women, Renshon said.

"I don't think he knows how to talk about them in a modern sensibility way," said Renshon, adding that the billionaire businessman is not used to having his utterances corrected by anyone.

Klevius comment: So he respects women for what they really do by promoting them without prejudice. That can't be said about the social state, the religious state, the academic state, and many other places where women are hitting the ceiling before men because incompetent women are placed as Potemkin fronts. Honestly, what else than incompetency could possibly explain female sharia supporters denying themselves full Human Rights? Klevius doesn't believe it's the Vagina. What about you?

"Modern sensitivities" (incl.  is exactly what we should avoid because behind it creeps inequality, sexism and racism freely.

Klevius never "outgrew an adolescent fixation with desirable and beautiful women" either (it's natural and called heterosexual attraction). If Klevius had he wouldn't have long to live anymore if we are to believe science according to which tendencies for impotency often may signal serious cardiovascular problems. However, despite Klevius never ending potential for sex and his "adolescent fixation with desirable and beautiful women", Klevius has never ever felt a desire to rape or sexually assault sexy women (i.e. no need for burqas where Klevius is around). Nor has he ever seen any difference in the human value of sexy women compared to ugly women. And no matter how a person looks like, Klevius would always be more interested in what's inside the head than anything else. What about you?

Personally Klevius has never had any trouble turning himself into a "puddle of desire" whenever he and women so like mutually. However, this "puddle-of-desire" state isn't Klevius default state. By default Klevius sees every human being as an equal and not as an object for necrophilia. No matter how sexy, naked or whatever. Anyone else out there feeling the same or is Klevius just a freak?

Do you see any difference between these two humans? Klevius doesn't - because he knows nothing about them.

Hillary Clinton is backed by rape accused Saudi islamofascist and Wall Street terrorist Alwaleed bin Talal

Alwaleed bin Talal is a disgrace to the civilized world because of his islamofascism and due spread of support for its hateful agendas around the world. However, he seems to be in deep denial of his own appalling bigotry and hypocrisy. And for such immoral individuals the defense mechanism is often to accuse others:

.@realDonaldTrump You are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America. Withdraw from the U.S presidential race as you will never win.

— الوليد بن طلال (@Alwaleed_Talal) December 11, 2015

Trump responded:

Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do it when I get elected. #Trump2016

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2015

Klevius comment: Do note that this happened when Trump was still seen as a temporary "fool" in the race and without any possibilities to be nominated.

In January 2016 Denis MacEoin essentially repeats parts of what Klevius has said for a decade. However, Denis' journalistic English is probablyt better than Klevius. Also consider that so called "islamic human rights" is just an other name for islamofascist sharia:

    The law regarding freedom of speech and of religion, as it exists in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, is already compelled to protect all citizens and to extend that protection to non-citizens who come to American shores.

    Are Muslims in need of greater protection? According to the FBI's 2014 Hate Crime Statistics, there were 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. that year: Of those, 56.8% were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Jewish bias. 16.1% were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Muslim bias.

    "We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, and because we continue to see the 'defamation of religions' concept used to justify censorship, criminalization, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world." — U.S. Ambassador Eileen Donahoe.

    Again and again, Muslim individuals and organizations have released documents to define Islamic human rights, and in each instance, all rights are restricted to those given by God and are subject to the phrase "according to the Shari'a."

House Resolution 569 was introduced to the U.S. Congress on December 17, 2015 and was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution is headed: "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States." The problem is that the law regarding freedom of speech and of religion, as it exists in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, is already compelled to protect all citizens and to extend that protection to non-citizens, be they businessmen or tourists who come to American shores: "Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." No democracy should believe otherwise.

The House of Representatives' Resolution 569 introduces the following Whereas clauses:

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;
(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;
(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and
(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

The resolution seems above criticism -- every clause in it could seemingly have the wholesale approval approbation of anyone -- yet something feels incredibly wrong. That something is the question of why the U.S. House of Representatives has issued such a resolution for Muslims and Muslims only. They and everyone else -- Christians, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, and Scientologists, right through to the adherents of satanic cults -- are already granted the full protection of the law so long as they do not break it.

Are Muslims, then, in need of greater protection than everyone else? Are they more subject to assaults, hate speech, arson attacks than any other religious community? If they were, this resolution might be welcome, even though it would not add a single article to existing legal protections. However, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports: 2014 Hate Crime Statistics, of the 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes that year in the U.S.:

    56 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Jewish bias.
    16.1 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Muslim bias.
    6.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
    6.1 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Catholic bias.
    2.5 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Protestant bias.
    1.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
    11.0 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' bias against other religions (anti-other religion).

On that basis, we might expect there to have been quite a few House Resolutions concerning Jews. All I have been able to find are: H.Res.293 "Expressing concern over anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement within the Palestinian Authority" and H.Res.354 – "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the safety and security of Jewish communities in Europe."

Again, both Senate and Congress have issued resolutions to condemn the persecution of the Baha'i religious minority in Iran.[1] But as the Baha'is are not persecuted in the U.S., one might not expect a resolution concerning their protection under U.S. law. These might be worthy resolutions, but have no relevance for the United States as such.

Surely, then, there should be laws protecting Jews! However, neither H.Res. 293 nor H.Res. 354 addresses that issue in distinction to H.Res. 569, which specifically concerns Muslims "in the United States." The disparity between anti-Jewish hate crimes and the much smaller incidence of anti-Muslim crimes stands in stark contrast to the indifference of Congress towards Jews in an age of rapidly rising anti-Semitism and what appears excessive (though decent) concern for Muslims.

In reality, of course, there is no need for extra legislation to protect Jews. They are already protected by existing laws, as are all other religious communities, as noted above.

Why, then, did not a single member of Congress get up on the floor to point out this manifest discrepancy? Surely it must be obvious that, should the resolution pass into law, Muslims will be the only group (religiously, politically, ethnically, or what you will) in the United States to be ring-fenced from anything that might offend them.

We know that Muslims and Muslim authorities are not robust in taking criticism or satire, but are, rather, seemingly hypersensitive to almost anything non-Muslims say of them.

The only conclusion one can draw from this is that the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/1 seems to have influenced Congress. Do not forget that the OIC is the only international religious body to have campaigned ceaselessly for legislation to protect believers of Islam from physical and verbal abuse, with verbal abuse determined according to shari'a principles rather than the traits of international or national democratic values.

In Great Britain, a landmark judgement was passed on January 5, 2016, in a court in Belfast, Northern Ireland, when a judge ruled that evangelical pastor James McConnell was not guilty of hate speech directed at Muslims. McConnell had been arrested last May after remarks during a sermon about Islam at his church. In his sermon, he had spoken of Islam as "satanic," "heathen" and "a doctrine spawned in hell." These may be sentiments with which most of the world would not agree, but entirely within the bounds of evangelical Christian theology, not least in that frequently bigoted region of fundamentalist, belief, where even the majority of fellow Christians are despatched to hellfire, with Catholics at the bottom of the heap. It is also not that different from what many Muslim clerics say about Jews and others.

As his sermon had been posted online, McConnell was charged under the Communications Act 2003 of making improper use of a public electronics communications network and of causing a grossly offensive message through those channels. But even though the judge found his remarks offensive, he was exonerated and walked out of a court a free man.

In Europe, criticisms of Islam have been met with a range of penalties. Individuals have been prosecuted and sometimes been found guilty of "Islamophobic" speech or writing -- notably Elizabeth Sabatisch-Wolff and Susanne Winter in Austria, Geert Wilders and Gregorious Nekschot in the Netherlands, Lars Hedegaard and Jesper Langballe in Denmark, Michel Houellebecq and Brigitte Bardot in France, Oriana Fallaci in Italy, and others elsewhere. Some have been exonerated, others jailed or fined. Pastor McConnell has been fortunate in avoiding jail. So far the UK has been tolerant, but further trials -- very often for what really amounts to nothing more than blasphemy as perceived by Muslim groups or individuals -- are very likely. Today, more than ever, there are forces at work that seek to make these prosecutions a certainty, not just in Europe, but in the United States, Canada, and other countries in the West.

The threat to freedom of speech a comes mainly from one quarter: an international body known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). In recent years, one of the core activities of the OIC has been repeated attempts to introduce via the United Nations Human Rights Council a law forbidding any form of blasphemy, criticism, or negative comment, especially about the Islamic religion. To understand this, it is important to note that, from the time of the prophet Muhammad to the present day (and more strongly within modern radical Muslim movements), the Islamic religion has been predicated on a call for domination over all other religions and political systems. Here, for example, are some explicit expressions of that demand in radical websites: a YouTube video and a website linked to the British extremist, Omar Bakri Muhammad.

In the video, Omar Bakri declares "We must live by and make a domination and die (?) on in our da'wa (missionary work) and jihad in order to spread it [Islam] all over. The video page is entitled "Proclaim openly for Izharudeen", meaning "proclaim openly for making the faith victorious over all others," and displays a photograph of several Muslims carrying placards declaring "Islam will dominate the world: Freedom go to hell. A website publishing extracts from the classical Qur'an commentary of Ibn Kathir is headed with the words: "Islam is the Religion that will dominate over all Other Religions" and below that cites a Qur'anic verse declaring that God will "make it [Islam] victorious over all religions" before quoting several traditions declaring the same thing in various formulations. Finally, a Facebook page titled "In sha Allah, Islam will dominate the world" from which several more sites with the same statement are revealed below the main heading.

Islamic policy from the time of the seventh-century Arab conquests through the later empires was to set Muslim rulers above native populations, even if at first Muslims were in a minority. Pagans could choose to convert or die, but Jews, Christians, and before long Zoroastrians, were treated (under the oppressive terms of the Pact of 'Umar) as dhimmi people, forced to pay a protection tax, the jizya, in order to preserve their lives and property. There were different laws for people of a different religion, in addition to numerous restrictive conditions for dhimmis, including these:

    We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

    We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

    We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.

    We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

    We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

    We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

    We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas [honorific name derived from one's eldest child, such as Abu, father of]

    We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

    We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

    We shall not sell fermented drinks.

    We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

    We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar [a kind of belt] round our waists

    We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

    We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

    We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

A Muslim, under shari'a regulations, cannot be brought to trial or punished for killing a non-Muslim.[2]

Given this classic formulation, it is easy to see that non-Muslims living in Islamic states or empires risked their lives should they say anything whatever detrimental to Islam, considered insulting to the prophet, or thought derogatory of the Qur'an, the Hadith, shari'a law or the Muslim clerical elite.

This attitude -- that no-one is permitted to speak ill (however that be defined) of Islam or its many elements without facing condign punishment (which includes death even for Muslims who are deemed to have crossed the lines of offense and have thereby become "apostates") -- has in the past placed enormous restrictions on what may be said or written about the religion. These restrictions did not matter in the least to anyone living in a Christian country, where there was little likelihood of retaliation from Muslims. But today most Western countries have large Muslim populations, and relations between the West and the Islamic world are carried out on the world stage. The riots, assassinations, and death threats that followed Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa [religious legal opinion] in 1989 to kill the British writer, Salman Rushdie, for his novel, The Satanic Verses, were indicative of a new direction.

Since the Enlightenment, open debate and free speech have been enshrined in the laws and practices of all democracies. It is central to the American way of life since the 1791 first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which also guarantees freedom from religious coercion. To Westerners -- both legislators and the general public -- freedom of speech (and writing) seems axiomatic as a basic human right. But for Muslims, human rights are very differently understood. Again and again, when Muslim individuals and organizations have released documents to define Islamic human rights, in each instance, all rights are restricted to those given by God and are subject to the phrase "according to the Shari'a."[3] One of the best known statements of this kind is the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. Its last two articles read thus:

    ARTICLE 24:
    All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

    ARTICLE 25:
    The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

In the present context, Article 22 is also of particular interest:

    ARTICLE 22:
    (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.
    1. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah.
    (c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
    (d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.

It is on the basis of this attitude to human rights, including the supposed right to express one's opinion freely, that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has tried many times to introduce legislation within the United Nations that controls free speech in accordance with the demands of shari'a. The OIC has advocated bans on the "defamation of religion" in general, but in reality, it is defamation of Islam that matters. In Geneva, from 19 to 30 October 2009, the Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards met to update the measures for combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance that the Durban I conference had formulated. During the discussion, the United States, Sweden and France all agreed that legal protection could not be provided for systems of belief or religions. However, the Syrian delegate stated clearly that "in real terms defamation means targeting Muslims".

What is deemed to be defamatory is, of course, hugely restrictive, whether it be in the form of a novel, a cartoon, or even an academic study. As experience has shown, nothing is off limits.

Between 1999 and 2010, several Muslim states, at the instigation of the OIC and supported by a range of Third World countries, introduced resolutions at the UNHRC on "the defamation of religion" no fewer than 16 times. Initially, these resolutions were passed by majority votes, with delegates from Muslim states and developing countries supporting them. Western states for the greater part opposed them on the grounds that they threatened to restrict free speech. As time passed support for the resolution began to weaken. In 2009, for example, no fewer than 200 civil societies from 46 countries urged the UNHRC to reject an upcoming resolution on the subject.

In the same year, during the debate on another resolution, the European Union's delegate, Jean-Baptiste Mattei, declared that the EU "rejected and would continue to reject the concept of defamation of religions." He went on to say that "human rights laws did not and should not protect belief systems." In the same debate, Carlos Portales from Chile noted that "the concept of the defamation of religions took them in an area that could lead to the actual prohibition of opinions." However, the UNHRC adopted the resolution -- without taking a vote.

Again, in 2010, Pakistan introduced a resolution "Combating the defamation of religion" on behalf of the OIC. Once more Jean-Baptiste Mattei opposed it. He argued that the "concept of defamation should not fall under the remit of human rights because it conflicted with the right to freedom of expression." The U.S ambassador, Eileen Donahoe, declared with great clarity that

    "The United States will vote against this resolution because we view it as an ineffective way to address these concerns. We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, and because we continue to see the 'defamation of religions' concept used to justify censorship, criminalization, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world. Contrary to the intentions of most Member States, governments are likely to abuse the rights of individuals in the name of this resolution, and in the name of the Human Rights Council."

Despite these many resolutions, members of the OIC were possibly starting to see that they were getting nowhere and that opposition to their attempt to introduce a ban on free speech through the back door was growing. They had to find a formula that would deflect criticism and win the support of Western states for whom freedom of speech was a non-negotiable condition. The answer was simple yet immensely effective. Instead of a focus on the protection of beliefs, why not stress the need to protect individual believers? On March 24, 2010, the UNHRC adopted (again without a vote) Resolution 16/18, entitled "Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion and belief."

Overnight, everyone was playing a totally different ball game. Who could refuse to support a resolution with a title like that? The OIC had, as it were, slipped past customs checks and delivered something which apparently no one could reject.

A meeting was convened on July 15, 2011, hosted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the OIC Istanbul Office in the Yildiz Palace. The affair was co-chaired by OIC Secretary-General H.E Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu; U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs.[4] The OIC was home and dry, backed by just about everyone who had previously expressed concern about its plan. A joint statement was released, calling for international support for Resolution 16/18.[5]

Resolution 16/18 has since become the gold standard according to which the international community may identify religious hatred, stereotyping, or incitement to hatred on racial or religious grounds. Understood in terms of international human rights law as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the thrust of the resolution appears unimpeachable. It is hard, if not impossible, openly to disagree with it in that context without seeming opposed to such rights.

There are, in fact, serious grounds for concern. These relate in part to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which entered into force ten years later, in 1976. This lengthy and important expression of human rights re-asserted the fundamental prescriptions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The rights it demands include:

    physical integrity, in the form of the right to life and freedom from torture and slavery (Articles 6, 7, and 8);
    liberty and security of the person, in the form of freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the right to habeas corpus (Articles 9 – 11);
    procedural fairness in law, in the form of rights to due process, a fair and impartial trial, the presumption of innocence, and recognition as a person before the law (Articles 14, 15, and 16);
    individual liberty, in the form of the freedoms of movement, thought, conscience and religion, speech, association and assembly, family rights, the right to a nationality, and the right to privacy (Articles 12, 13, 17 – 24);
    prohibition of any propaganda for war as well as any advocacy of national or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence by law (Article 20);
    political participation, including the right to the right to vote (Article 25);
    Non-discrimination, minority rights and equality before the law (Articles 26 and 27).

Unexpectedly, the International Covenant came to play a role following the passage of UNHRC Resolution 16/18. Four months after the passage of the, the UNHRC itself adopted General Comment 34 on the International Covenant with respect to freedoms of opinion and expression. The Comment places strong emphasis on the importance of those freedoms. Paragraph 48 declares that:

    "Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith."

These cautions certainly restrict the application of the OIC-instigated Resolution 16/18 from a Western human rights perspective. Viewed from that perspective, Resolution 16/18 is, at heart, hypocritical. On the surface, it makes it seem that the OIC has adopted a Western approach to human rights. In fact, it has not. Hidden from many people, including, I am sure, most of the Western members of the UN Human Rights Council is the OIC's real position on human rights. It relies solely on Islamic legal prescriptions to determine what is and what is not a right. This is easy to see.

On its own website, the OIC publishes the full text and advocates the use of the Cairo Declaration mentioned above as the basis for its actual understanding of such rights. However, as all rights under the Cairo Declaration are declared subject to shari'a laws, this can only mean that the OIC regards the Western interpretation of Resolution 16/18 as invalid. If we then add that the freedoms of opinion, speech, and other expression are nowhere permitted within the Islamic world and are often punished in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sudan and elsewhere by imprisonment, flogging, and execution, one does have to question the sincerity of the OIC in promoting freedoms that it nowhere actually recognizes.

In theory, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Baha'is and some other religious communities will resort to the terms of the resolution when they are genuinely applicable to cases of being demonized and subjected to real incitement to violence. Unfortunately, for many years now we have seen that, in reality, it is most often Muslims who try to use anti-hate legislation to condemn perfectly reasonable criticism, satire, attempts to question shari'a, or to protest Islamic extremism. Resolution 16/18 will very likely assist many Muslims in bringing even more prosecutions against non-Muslim critics or even against moderate Muslims who oppose much that is done in the name of Islam.

There are, indeed, signs that Resolution 16/18 may already be bringing its influence to bear in some democratic states, not least that former bastion of free speech, the United States.

Our natural concern for the protection of the weak and vulnerable, a concern rooted in Western Judaeo-Christian and Enlightenment values, makes it easy for legislators from different political positions to sign a document such as the US Congress H.Res. 569. They may not have seen the hidden implications of their attempt to render it illegal to offend (as defined by Muslims) the members of just one religion. The legislators may not even have seen the exceptionalism granted to Muslims but to no other religious community.

Given the existence of the First Amendment, the United States remains capable of resisting attacks on free speech and expression. It would be regrettable if H.Res. 569 could prove to be a Trojan Horse, just as was Resolution 16/18.

Legislation such as H. Res, 569 would not only end America's long tradition of free and open debate; worse, it would reverse the protection of the First Amendment.

    Denis MacEoin is a scholar of Islam and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

[1] S.Res. 148 (also dated December 17, 2015) "Condemns the government of Iran's state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and its continued violation of the International Covenants on Human Rights." It was preceded by H.Res. 220 of May 20, 2015.

[2] See Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, 'Umdat al-salik, trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller as Reliance of the Traveller, Amana, Maryland, rev. ed. 1994, p. 584 o1.2 (2).

[3] A comprehensive, scholarly and eye-opening survey of these documents may be found in Ann Elizabeth Mayer's Islam and Human Rights. For a broader discussion of the many issues involved, see the essays in International Law and International Human Rights Law.

[4] Others attending the meeting included foreign ministers and officials from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Sudan, United Kingdom, the Vatican (Holy See), UN OHCHR, Arab League, and African Union.

[5] "Participants resolved to... reaffirm their commitment to freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression by urging States to take effective measures, as set forth in Resolution 16/18... to address and combat intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.... Participants are encouraged to consider to provide updates... on the elimination of religious intolerance and discrimination."