This man, Jacob Rees-Mogg, wants to rob people in England of their most basic Human Rights.
Pic text furthest down on this posting.
Jacob Rees-Mogg wants to skip Human Rights and to prefer trade/sharia
finance* with Human Rights violating islamofascists: "I don’t think
eternal, everlasting moral principles… go very well with the day-to-day
practice of government and legislation."
* Do note that England is more
dependent on finance than any other EU country, and that finance is the
sector first in line to be practically 100% robotized in the very near
future.
Peter Klevius: This statement either means that this homophobic
right wing extremist doesn't understand Human Rights at all - or that
he's lying in the UK parliament.
Here's Klevius help if it's
indeed ignorance he suffers from: The individual is the basis for
democracy. However, democracy is collective. Therefore the rights of the
individual is the "constitution" on which democracy is based. This
constitution is called (negative) Human Rights, i.e. the negative
obligation to abstain from interfering with the individual. If you still
have trouble understanding this, then compare it with traffic rules
which are all about the individual, and with no reference to
"communities", "collectives", "groups", "religion" etc. And the reason
is self-evident for most people, i.e. that every individual should have
the same right to proceed within the limitations the flow of traffic
itself may actuate. And there are no "obligations", "duties" or
restrictions dependent on sex.
No matter how "Western", "imperialist" etc. - Atheism (or A(mono)theism)
is the only road to moral responsibility and Human Rights equality.
Why? Simply because it eliminates "chosen people", "forgivness of sins",
and totalitarian sharia racism and sexism, by giving everyone the same
"rights space". This is the very foundation of the anti-fascist 1948
Universal Human Rights Declaration.
Why is Wikipedia lying,
faking, and misrepresenting islam and Human Rights? How hard could it be
to disinguish clear evil from good? Sharia islam imposes limitations on
women - Human Rights protects women from such imposed limitations.
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (i.e. islamofascist sharia)
ARTICLE 6:
(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity,
and has her own rights to enjoy as well as
duties to perform, and has her own civil
entity and financial independence, and the
right to retain her name and lineage.
(b) The husband is responsible for the
maintenance and welfare of the family.
The anti-fascist 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,
jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person
belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other
limitation of sovereignty.
It's all about the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. Sounds silly,
does it? What could ppossibly such a small power among the world's
giants do? Well, consider what the islamofascist Saudi dictator
familyreally is. It's not what it looks like because the real power
behind it (and all "religion" retorics) is that the islamofascist Saudi
dictator family (no dude, it won't help to get rid of the Wahhabi
branch) are the "guardians" of islam and that we have lumped together
1.5 Billion muslims, and that those muslims furthermore are lumped
together in a judicial sharia prison via Saudi based and steered OIC
(Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which more or less now steers UN
despite opposing those very basic Human Rights UN was built around. And
even this wouldn't be enough was it not for the financially tied support
these islamofascists (i.e. Human Rights violators) get from Western
business and politicians.
Klevius criticism of islam has nothing
to do with what individual muslims might believe but all to do with the
collective use of religion for financial, political and military uses.
There's
a widespread conflation of individual beliefs and collective religion.
Klevius couldn't care less about what individuals believe as long as
they respect each other.What bothers Klevius is the faceless "community"
in which the individual is lost.
There's no equality between men and Women in islam
A
combination of islam and feminism has been advocated as "a feminist
discourse and practice articulated within an islamic paradigm (i.e.
sharia)". Islamic feminism is defined by islamic "scholars" (i.e. with
"PhDs" in islamism using sharia as their pseudiscientific tool) as being
anchored with the non-sensical Koran as its central text.
In
islam there is a difference between men and women based on physical
differences and their roles given by "Allah", i.e. what we usually call
essentialism, i.e. the view that categories of people, such as women and
men, or heterosexuals and homosexuals, or members of ethnic groups,
have intrinsically different and characteristic natures or dispositions -
i.e. what we call racism and sexism.
Muslim men are given the
"right" to "take care" of "their" wives and kids, and those who do not
will suffer the consequences. This is in twisted islam "logic" because
men are created physically stronger than women. Islam stresses on the
different roles "Allah" (i.e. the human muslim interpretor) has given to
men and women because of how "Allah" created them. Men are providers
and women are the caregivers at home, given more patience, resilience,
and the "ability to forgive more than men".
Klevius concluding
comment: Try to get some structure in this craziness. There are sharia
muslims and cultural "muslims" (or secular "muslims") on a scale from
poor and ignorant muslims to educated Billionary muslims. And they are
all lumped together under the muslims/islam title which is then used as a
sledgehammer - not the least against the most precious asset we as
humans possess, i.e. basic (negative) Human Rights equality against
racism and sexism.
Klevius has fought for these rights all his
adult life - and did never image a time when he should be called an
"islamophobic" "racist" for fighting against racism.
Pic text
Jacob Rees-Mogg paving the way for racist and sexist religious fascism in
UK Parliament
This man wants to rob people in England of their most basic Human Rights.
Eton boy Jacob Rees-Mogg wants to skip Human Rights and prefer trade with
Human Rights violating islamofascists: "I don’t think eternal, everlasting moral
principles… go very well with the day-to-day practice of government and
legislation."
Peter
Klevius: This statement either means that this religious homophobic
right wing extremist doesn't understand Human Rights at all - or that
he's lying in the UK parliament.
Here's Klevius help if it's
indeed ignorance he suffers from: The individual is the basis for
democracy. However, democracy is collective. Therefore the rights of the
individual is the "constitution" on which democracy is based. This
constitution is called (negative) Human Rights, i.e. the negative
obligation to abstain from interfering with the individual.
If you still have trouble understanding this, then compare it with traffic
rules which are all about the individual, and with no reference to "communities",
"collectives",
"groups", "religion" etc. And the reason is self-evident for most
people, i.e. that every individual should have the same right to proceed
within the limitations the flow of traffic itself may actuate. And
there are no "obligations", "duties" or restrictions dependent on sex.