Are you or your representative(s) for or against basic Human Rights equality?

Peter Klevius global morality can only be challenged by violating the most basic of Human Rights.

Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".

* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.

This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.

Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.


Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):

* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.

1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.

2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).

3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).

Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

Saudi induced muslim attack on UK Parliament. How many elsewhere? And what about Saudi/OIC's sharia

Saudi induced muslim attack on UK Parliament. How many elsewhere? And what about Saudi/OIC's sharia

Racist UK Government and BBC

Racist UK Government and BBC

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

Peter Klevius "islamophobia"/Human Rightsphobia test for you and your politicians

Warning for a muslim robot!

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia

UK PM candidate Rees-Mogg: Germans needed Human Rights - we don't. Klevius: I really think you do.

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

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

Peter Klevius' 1986 experimental zero budget refugee video

Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!

By squeezing in Atheist ideologies/philosophies as well as polytheisms under the super set BBC calls "religion", and by narrowing 'Atheism' to what it's not (Atheism is what it says on the tin - no god) they produced the extremely faked proposition that 84% of the world's population is "religious". Moreover, BBC also proudly claimed that the 84% figure is rising even more. Well, that's only by relying on those poor women in Pakistan, Bangladesh, English muslim ghettos (where most so called "British" women don't even speak English) etc., who still produce many more children than the average in the world. But Klevius doesn't think this abuse of girls/women is anything to cheer.

The main threat to your Human Rights

The main threat to your Human Rights

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Monday, April 4, 2016

UK blasphemy law in action


IPSO: Islam and mosques can't be cricized or questioned - only individual muslims


 The assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council Miqdaad Versi complained to IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation - created after an intensive campaign by BBC) about the accuracy of the Daily Star Sunday article with the headline “UK mosques give cash for terror”. It was also publishned online with the headline “UK mosques fundraising for terror”.

The articles suggested that money was being transferred to Bosnia in order to fund terrorist training camps in the country.

Versi allegedly said: "There is growing islamophobia in the UK today, with more and more people having negative attitudes towards Muslims. In such a climate, it is very important that newspapers are careful in reporting facts accurately. In this case, the newspaper wrongly alleged that UK mosques were fundraising for terror without any evidence.

"Such sensationalism creates real damage as it reinforces an unfounded assumption that mosques across the UK are a problem in our society. I hope that through this correction, isolated incidents can be seen for what they are – actions by fringe elements of society, and not linked to Muslim institutions such as mosques.”


IPSO ruling: Summary of complaint



Decision of the Complaints Committee
11868-15 Versi v Daily Star on Sunday

1. Miqdaad Versi complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Star on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “UK mosques give cash for terror”, published on 22 November 2015. It was published online with the headline “UK mosques fundraising for terror”.

2. The article reported that one of the newspaper’s journalists had posed as a man wanting to transfer money abroad which he had “raised with the help of a group of Bradford-based Isis sympathisers”. The man he contacted told him that he could assist him with transferring the money to Bosnia, and said that “we get funds from UK brothers from collections at mosques”. The article suggested that money is being transferred to Bosnia in order to fund terrorist training camps there. The text of the article was the same online and in print, only the headlines and sub-headlines differed.

3. The complainant said that the headlines were inaccurate as they suggested that UK mosques, generally, were raising money to fund terrorist activity. In fact, as the article had made clear, it was one group of men in Bradford, and not any mosque as an organisation, that was collecting money. Further, there was no suggestion that the practice was occurring beyond that single group, but the headline had given the impression that the practice was widespread. The statement that UK mosques had been collecting money to fund terrorism had been presented as fact, and not adequately distinguished as the claim of the one person with whom the journalist had been in contact.

4. The newspaper did not believe that the headlines had been significantly inaccurate or misleading. It said that the headlines should be read in conjunction with the text of the article, and in this case the text had made clear that the funding of terrorism by mosques was a claim made by one man. The sub-headline of the print article, “Radical in boasts about whip rounds”, made clear that the statement in the headline above it was the pretension of one individual. Similarly, the sub-headline of the online version of the article stated that “Cash collected in UK mosques is funding terrorism, it was claimed last night”, made clear that this was not established fact.

5. Nonetheless, the newspaper offered to publish the following clarification in a forthcoming edition, on page 2; the original article had appeared on page 9:

“The headline of an article, published on 22 November 2015, stated ‘UK mosques give cash for terror’. We would like to clarify that the headline was based on the claims of radical Isa Amriki that funding for terrorism came from collections at mosques, not by or on behalf of UK mosques, which were not involved in any way.”

6. It also offered to amend the online headline so that it read “Collections at UK mosques ‘fundraising for terror’”, and to append a version of the clarification as a footnote.

7. The complainant requested an opportunity to work with the newspaper in future to avoid repetition of similar inaccuracies, and the opportunity to write a positive story about Muslims. The newspaper declined to resolve the complaint on this basis, and so the complainant asked that the Committee adjudicate on the matter.

Relevant Code Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

(i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

(ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published.

(iii) The press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

9. It was accepted by the newspaper that the money was being collected by individuals acting in a personal capacity, and not by mosques as organisations. However, both versions of the headline had given the clear impression that mosques were institutionally raising money for terrorism. The single text message conversation that the journalist had had did not support this assertion. Both the print and online versions of the headline represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, and a breach of Clause 1 (i) of the Code.

10. The headlines were significantly misleading. They gave the impression that the newspaper had discovered serious, organised wrongdoing, when that was not the case, and the inaccuracies required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The newspaper had already offered to publish a clarification, and the Committee was satisfied that the proposed wording identified the initial inaccuracy and made clear the correct position. In the context of IPSO’s investigation of the complaint, the correction had been offered promptly. The newspaper had also offered to publish the clarification on page 2, when the article had appeared on page 9; this constituted sufficient prominence under the terms of the Code. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

11. The sub-headlines of both versions of the article had made clear that the statement that mosques were raising money for terrorist activity was a “boast” and a “claim”, and the article itself had made clear the basis for that claim. The Committee considered the headlines in their full context, and while the evidence provided in the article did not support the statement in the headlines and the Committee had already established that they were significantly inaccurate, there was no additional failure to distinguish between conjecture and fact in either the headlines or the text of the article; there was no breach of Clause 1 (iii).

Conclusions

12. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (Accuracy).

Remedial Action Required

13. The newspaper had already offered to publish a clarification in print, as well as amending the online article and appending the clarification as a footnote. These actions would be sufficient to remedy the established breach of the Code and, in light of the Committee’s decision, they should now be published.

Date complaint received: 07/12/2015
Date decision issued: 31/03/2016


Klevius ruling


Klevius comment: Interestingly IPSO, which was established through the work of a Jew is headed by an other Jew. Why is an "independent" press organization so closely related to islam supporting Jews? Couldn't they really find more secular/independent individuals for such important roles on a matter that to a high degree will encounter religious complaints. After all, islam is based on Judaism and islam is today the main cause of controversies, censorship etc. Or if they really needed Jews in this process, why not Jews critical of islam. There are probably more of them than those positive to islam.

Klevius conclusion: Firstly, "individuals acting in a personal capacity, and not by mosques as organisations" is a pure oxymoron in the case of sharia islam. "Mosques as organizations" constitute the very meeting places for muslims of all sorts. Secondly, as long as there are no efforts made to draw the line between "radical" sharia muslims and Westernized non sharia "muslims", then the generality of mosques apply.

However, the by far most important aspect is totally missing in the ruling, namely that it's a well known fact that UK mosques and madrassas have showed substantial problems living up to the "Westernized islam" mirage, and therefore the underlying criticism in the writings is in line with reality. As a consequence it turns out that it's IPSO's ruling that misses in "accuracy".

Klevius advice: Why don't you (the press) write about the fact that Miqdaad Versi is a sharia muslim who rejects the most basic of the Human Rights Declaration. So how does Klevius know this? He doesn't know it for sure of course because there is always the possibility that Miqdaad Versi lies to other muslims. However, as the assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council in Britain it seems defend able to assume he is a true sharia muslim.

 London will probably (with BBC's keen assistance) get a sharia muslim Mayor this spring - in line with Cameron's wish to make it the world's main sharia hub.

Is the next step to make a sharia muslim the head of IPSO?


All in line with the wishes of UK's "closest ally in the muslim world", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who harbor and steer the muslim world sharia organization OIC. An organization that has openly opposed the most basic of Human Rights equality.


Why so eagerly push for sharia "blasphemy" censorship when most muslims allegedly aren't "radical" and therefore maybe not that keen on supporting the Sauydi dictator family and sharia islam?!



No comments:

Post a Comment