A Yemeni woman is suing islamofascist Saudi Arabia at ICC - and asking England to arrest Mohammad ibn Salman (the war criminal dubbed "the world's most dangerous man"). And BBC is silent.

The real reason connecting BBC's faked and propagandistic sharia islam/Saudi agenda* and the racist and Human Rightsphobic part of "British" haters of EU/EU citizens, and "love" of islamofascist Human Rights violating oil wealthy muslims. 

* and due Human Rightsphobia and war  and hate mongering against Russia which is seen as a disturbing factor in the islamofascist Mideast led by England's "close ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who has repeatedly attacked England on its own soil by the help of sponsoring muslim terrorists and spreading islamic hate against Western "infidels".

This "the world's most dangerous man" and likely war criminal is welcomed to England. Why?

Germans! Do you think BBC's chat with Jacob Rees-Mogg is funny? No? Well Klevius has tried his best to make it funnier by ornamenting it with some additional details on this blog posting.

Fake and disgusting BBC News and UK's 18th century PM candidate and Human Rightsphobe (but positive to oil wealthy muslim sharia dictators such as e.g. Saudi Arabia) Jacob Rees-Mogg have a good laugh together: Germans have no sense of humor - and there has never been a chancellor able to crack a joke.

The potential Conservative leader Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the Human Rights Act in 2012. At the time, even Conservatives like Theresa May, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith were absent from the vote. Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the act again in 2016.

Mr Rees-Mogg clearly agrees that there are "huge areas of collaboration" between the UK and the Arabian Gulf islamofascist sharia dictatorships and war criminals. Especially selling more arms to them.

His fanatic and racist Human Rightsphobic Brexit speeches have paid off. He topped a survey of ruling Conservative Party members as the favorite to replace the incumbent leader, Theresa May. In the survey for Conservative Home, the deeply religious homophobic Human Rightsphobe and North East Somerset MP secured 23 per cent of the vote, while the Brexit secretary David Davis with his everlasting silly empty grin came in second with 15 per cent.

Dubbed "the MP for the 18th century" thanks to his unashamedly old-fashioned views, Mr Rees-Mogg has seen a surge in popularity among those very racists whom Theresa May and the "Brexiters" by playing hard with the "race card" let lose since the UK general election in June 2017. His racist and sexist grass roots movement called “Moggmentum” was set up to celebrate his every word via social media.

Klevius wonders whether Hillary Clinton would have called them "the deplorables"?

The potential Conservative leader Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the Human Rights Act in 2012. At the time, even Conservatives like Theresa May, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith were absent from the vote. Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the act again in 2016.

UK's Human Rights problem: Jacob Rees-Mogg's HR ignorance (?) and Theresa May's sharia recommendation

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.

Posted by Peter Klevius at 3:49 AM

In racist UK Parliament yesterday: "British people", "British people", "British people" - and go whistle Human Rights and EU citizens!

Theresa May and her Tories play the disgusting race card against EU citizens' Human Rights. Is it really any good for the "Brits"?

Constitutionally Theresa May & Co are worse than Myanmar. And no one knows what would have happened because of Theresa May's divisive and inflammatory playing of the race card 'against EU citizens if there had been similar attacks on police stations etc. as those Saudi initiated in Myanmar. Btw, why is BBC's bigoted and hypocritical sharia presenter Mishal Husain in Bangladesh propagating for Rohingyas instead of in her childhood country Saudi Arabia propagating for Yemenites? Moreover, the Bangladeshi muslims seem to be extremely hostile to what used to be their own people coming back after having been displaced by the Brits in the first place.

EU citizens in what used to be their homeland are already abused on a daily basis in England - by racist "Brits" as well as by government introduced administrative hostility and the shameful use of EU citizens as cards in trade negotiations.

"British people", echoed from the racist Tories in England's parliament debating the rights of "non-British" EU citizens who have been denied to vote on their own right to exist in what was their own land (EU) when they settled there.

However, so called "Brits" from Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. former British colonies were allowed to vote for denying EU citizens their rights in their own land.

Dominic Grieve called for the human rights detailed in the charter to be protected

The Conservative Party would send out ‘a really strange message’ if it does not incorporate the EU charter of fundamental rights into UK law after Brexit.

That’s according to senior Tory Dominic Grieve who said people view issues like LGBT rights ‘as being rights of a fundamental character’.

Ministers have previously said the human rights detailed in the charter will be protected and maintained in some form.

But the former attorney general accused the Government of giving a ‘paltry’ response to the matter.

Mr Grieve added that he hoped the House of Lords would revisit the issue when the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill makes its way to them.

He said: ‘I listen very carefully to what the prime minister says about modernising the Conservative Party, about giving it a broad appeal to younger people, about trying to ensure that we reflect current norms and standards in our country and give effect to them in the sorts of policies we develop.

‘And yet it does seem to me that in simply batting this issue away and saying don’t worry, it’s all going to be perfectly alright, without even coming up with a plan for the future about possibly adding a bill of rights clause or rights clauses to the Human Rights Act, we’re sending out a really very strange message about our attitude on this side of the House to matters which I believe many people in this country now see as being rights of a fundamental character, particularly on issues like LGBT and things of that sort.’

Mr Grieve said the Government had provided a mechanism where the rights in the charter could be invoked for three months after exit day, but not in a way which challenges primary legislation.

He added: ‘I have to say that I think that the response on this matter is, frankly, rather paltry.

‘It is a minuscule change, although I will also say this, that minuscule though it may be, it is actually a little wedge in the door, because it represents quite a major surrender or change of principle on the part of the Government towards this issue.’

Mr Grieve added that he did not think the Bill would pass through the House of Lords ‘without this issue being considered’.


Klevius comment: Theresa May has long before the Brexit vote showed her disgust against Human Rights. Why? Because Human Rights are against that very sharia she says is so "good for the Brits".