Sanction US! Nixon 1971, after having admitted stealing the dollar , also admitted that 'if you go abroad the dollar will give you less than before'. Peter Klevius: This difference is what US has stolen from the world - now in an accelerating tempo! Do BBC's Sarah Montague & Co really understand this?!
China is by far the best for consumers. That’s why $-freeloader (1971-) US wants to block it so to prolong US stolen $-hegemony. China has no reason to harm its trade – US has! Google, Facebook etc. are now directly connected to US military and spy organizations – i.e what US wrongly accuses Tik Tok for. Forget everything you’ve heard about China through US controlled/influenced media (incl. BBC which, before Tianamen 35 anniversary, sent senseless anti-China hate ranting lies in 10 acts). Sadly, it’s almost impossible to get balanced info about China in the West. This blog - which is almost invisible on Google but visible on duckduckgo - is deliberately on Google precisely to show 1) that US "freedom of expression" is a farse*, and 2) to leave a historical track of US criminal behavior and extreme censorship and falsification of the truth, which chokes the minds with steered ignorance in ordinary busy people who don't have a chance to really check it out. After all, whom do you trust, an anonyme blogger like Peter Klevius, or US, "the mighty defender of freedom, Western values, and the rules based world order". Simply by declaring what Klaus Schwab calls “a model country” a “threat”, US dictates its “allies” to do the same – in the face of tho people who want more Chinese tech and less hate against Chinese people. Moreover, Peter Klevius wonders whether China really would have been better off with the "democracy" protesters in China 1989 asked for, than the meritocratic high tech and on controlled capitalism resting post-Mao China we see today? And if so, then how would $-embezzler (1971-) US have reacted when "undemocratic"* China is already now seen as a "threat" against US stolen $-hegemony? According to research Chinese meritocracy reaches the will of the people much better than US "democracy"! * Google has to pretend being "fair", yet cunningly uses its algorithms and censoring power to suppress what its real master, the US militant oligarchy doesn't like - no matter how logically or morally correct and Human Right it is.
Peter Klevius religion tutorial: The racist/sexist curse of "monotheism" has as many "gods" as "believers". Even though the seed for Zoroastrianism and Ahura Mazda (the intelligent deity) originally came from China (e.g. the Yellow Emperor), it got distorted into the "chosen people" policy where Jews slaughtered the Canaanites, and Christians and muslims slaughtered Jews. So although Judaism came from Iranians and islam from Arabs, US 1971 $-embezzlement led to US supporting both Zionism and the islamist Saudi dictator family (petrodollar). Because of the evil and illogical origin of "monotheisms", PC West tries to blur the concept of 'religion' by 1) including non-monotheist "religions", while 2) still pushing for "monotheism" as the supremacist religion, so to fit US anti-China agenda. But all other s.c. "religions" are Atheist because they lack the "monogod" mantra - which shouldn't of course be conflated with supreme "deities", "forces", "spirits" etc. concepts residing inside our existencecentrism. Most people have always understood that humans aren't almighty (P. Klevius 1992:21). However, "monotheists" "believe" they somehow belong to something "outside" our existencecentrism, which is impossible. Whatever you believe resides inside your existencecentrism while having no access out of it. You may call the world the "observable universe" where you can "observe" whatever "belief" you come up with. Chinese Taoism understood this long before the "monotheism" fallacy came about. And while our existencecentrism is a mess of changes, it's nonsense to think of a "way out". Islam underscores this and, unlike Moses (who even "wrestled" with "god"), therefore Muhammad wasn't allowed to meet with "Allah" but only with his (yes, "his") messenger Gabriel. "God willing" is a handy reflection of the impossibility to talk about "god" because then you don't need to explain why "god" treated his good servants badly. Our existencecentrism limits us from the "external world" to which we can never have access. So trying to imagine or believe something beyond one's existencecentrism just bounces back. The wildest made up fantasies are no different from "believing in something beyond human understanding" because this is just an other internal concept. But to admit our existencecentrism by saying 'there's nothing outside it' is not a statement about the unknown which, of course, cannot be talked about, not even with the word 'nothing', which that can only be defined and used internally. However, "smart" "monotheists" avoid "god" and make up alleged "positives", but by doing so just keep fueling the orthodoxy they tried to avoid. It's not "free world vs CCP" but US militant theocracy vs Atheist super tech. US more than any other country subsidies everything with Feds stolen (since the world's biggest embezzlement started 1971) fiat money. US authoritarian military kleptocracy blocks US people from buying their dreams. The desperate* dictatorship puts 100% tax on those cars etc. people are most likely to want to buy. * Peter Klevius has nothing against US people but is worried about how US antidemocratic, rules making and breaking order, and desperate fear of losing its hegemony will negatively continue to affect the world. This is why Google (linked to Washington) suppresses Peter Klevius on the webb. Can't even find him despite 20 years of thousands of postings and pics on Blogger!

How US robs the world

Trying to understand the polarizing and warmongering without incl. the consequences of US 1971 $-theft - which are now coming home to roost because of China's superior R&D - is an equation without an x. From a pro-war politician's mouth always comes a copy of the original in US. US inflamed the existing racial tensions in Ukraine for the purpose of getting US nukes and US anti-nuke missiles on Russia's border, so to protect itself in its planned war against China - because only by creating a similar chaos as in WW2 on the Eurasian continent would US be able to continue its stolen dollar hegemony.

How US stole the world-dollar 1971

From US "exorbitant dollar privilege" (financial abuse of vulnerable countries - but the dollar still connected to gold) 1944-, to US financial fraud 1971- (US self-indulgent disconnection of the dollar value from gold after having spent too much on wars and space race etc.). US' "China threat" demonizing is now code for US own threat, i.e. US masking its own desperation when losing its 1971- stolen dollar hegemony because of China's growing high tech superiority. How many understand this simple truth - and how many blink it?! Before 1971 there was only one world-dollar (since Bretton Woods 1944). After the "Nixon chock" 1971 there were two: One for US dictated by US (Feds), and an other for the rest of the world, also dictated by US. And the difference was that the US-dollar made it possible for US to prosper despite trade deficit, because the rest of the world has paid the difference. Also do recognize that Roosewelt's similar move 1933 happened before the Bretton Woods agreement.
Warning! has been taken over by someone not connected to Peter Klevius. All old can be found on Klevius web museum 2003-2008.
Forget about Nature! Here you get your by far most qualified and least biased (not steered by peer "reviews" or PC editors, but by super high IQ not corrupted by religion, politics or money) scientific overall understanding of evolution (1981), human evolution (1992-), consciousness (1992-94) and AI (1979-), and Human Rights (1979- incl. sex segregation). In his topics of scientific interest Peter Klevius has got highest possible recommendations from world leading professors on the topics. And no, the author has never been caught with mental problems, abuse or criminality, and has successfully fostered all of his children. So why presenting himself like this?! Simply because his best services to science can't get properly through via other media, and here it's often dismissed as "just a blogger's opinion" - which is quite rich when considering much peer reviewed nonsense PC "science" allowed on Nature! And non-scientific posts here of course utilize the same brain power.

US/UK choose war and genocide instead of ceasefire

When terrorists attacked, raped and slaughtered more in Xinjiang than terrorists did in Israel, US declared China's peaceful law and order response a "genocide", while calling Israel's real war genocide against Palestinians "Israel's right to defend itself"! Moreover, US and its little militaristic puppet UK (where the military budget is expanding while economy is stalling and people suffer) both actively participate in Israel's genocide!

US smearing and censoring China

US smearing and censoring China
US historical anti-China laws
Why is a meritocratic, capitalism and trade supporting, Chinese president, with more than 2/3 approval rating, called a "dictator", while a wild capitalism and protectionism and anti-China sanctions and smearing supporting, militaristic warmongering US president with 1/3 of indirect votes on electors who were chosing among candidates chosen by the big money, is called "democratic"?! It seems that "Christian democracy" is a similarly empty but magic wording as is "the Atheist Communist dictatorship".

Peter Klevius and Robert Sapolsky lack "free will"

$-freeloader (since 1971-) US supports Israel no matter what!

China's progress reveals the tech loser and $-freeloader (since 1971-) US' "democratic" nakedness!

Atheist (like the overwhelming majority of Brits) Peter Klevius (whose genetist declared him an Anglo-Saxon) to figurehead King (but not at all absolute monarch) Charles 3: Please celebrate the year 1948 when you and the Universal Human Rights Declaration were born, by asking for forgiveness for all the atrocities England has done on the British Isles and around the world - especially the less talked about, e.g. like the opium wars, and how England was an accomplice to the islamic slave trade which is the worst ideologically based crime against humanity ever. Also please mention all the Communists and other people who constituted more than the Jews in the Holocaust but whose suffering and death is sadly not talked about at all. And do apologize for the British horrifying firebombings against civilians in the end of World War 2 whila Russia was fighting the Maxi army. And why not also apologize for stealing the Chagos Island from the Chagossians, then deporting them from their own land, and renting it out as a military base for rogue state US! Also don't forget evil British meddling and militarism consuming from foreign aid and starving and freezing Brits. And don't forget to criticize BBC which has no problem with the invitation of the islamofascist muslim terrorism supporting Saudi dictator family (a real absolute kingdom which, unlike China, doesn't accept Human Rights) but never stops its unfounded racist Sinophobic spitting on China and its extremely balanced Hong Kong policy against seditious British backed terrorism against the "one nation two systems" incl. the attacks against Hong Kong governmental and parliamentary buildings even worse than the Capitol demonstration in US which BBC paints in exactly the opposite way. Or UK's senseless "genocide" against muslims accusation against China despite the world's largest muslim organization OIC praised China for its good treatment of muslims in Xinjiang and elsewhere. Wheras BBC cherry picked jihadist stories and some random incidents not approved by the Chinese government, OIC sent a big delegation to inspect the allegations and talked with the non-jihadi muslim community! Charles! You talk about indigenous voices - did you include e.g. the Chagossians - held crucial messages about preservation of the land, respecting community and shared values, resolving conflict, and recognizing and making good on past iniquities, right! Don't worry about demonstrations and stupidities. And if you're curious about the biggest scientific questions as you say you are, then welcome to my blogs - however, Google may ask you to sign in because truth and Human Rights are "sensitive"! Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. And read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct. And much more!
How did US become the devil of the world? The seed was planted 1971 when US chose the criminal path by stealing the dollar! And today US lures, abuses, corrupts and threatens the rest of the West through its stolen dollar hegemony which it uses for demonizing, warmongering, and militarization against modern China - a country that in every aspect beats US and could stand as a model for the confused West, and which success means that even Taiwan starts leaning towards mainland China (to which it belongs and even US itself admits it does) because it promises a better future (just see how much wealthier Hong Kong is already per capita compared to Taiwan). Moreover, some half of the Taiwanese don't share the ruling party's anti-China policy - which fact scum media BBC never tells its compulsory fee paying brainwashed listeners about. So evil US wants war against China before China-Taiwan relations become even better.
20230314 US drone wasn't protected by "freedom of navigation" because it participated in the Ukraine war before taken down by Russian fighter jet. Everyone who has followed me knows that I am, and always have been, anti-Maoist - but modern China is something else entirely. First, the U.S. declares modern China a "threat" and then militarizes against this contrived threat. Sinophobic demonization of modern China is inspired by US/CIA propaganda and its own prejudices. And the warmongers of Brexit UK submit to the US and go against the people suffering from US dollar hegemony inflation. Take away the racist glasses and Xi&Co almost comes across as a Jesus, and as far from "dictatorship" as you can get compared to the dictatorship of the United States and how the West's politicians go against the will of the people regarding, for example, NATO and militaristic warmongering. Modern capitalist China has nothing in common with Mao's China, but uses the word 'communism' partly to imply continuity, but above all to refer to something to which all countries even in the West refer, i.e. fairer distribution. Nor has China historically ever engaged in the same kind of colonialist and imperialist expansion as the West. This makes modern China credible as it claims to support all countries' right to self-government and free from interference. Xi has no power of his own, but only reflects the absolute majority of the will of the people and was therefore 100% unanimously re-elected - only an idiot would propose an inferior leader, just look at Xi's track record. China's "Communist Party" has a better functioning meritocratic democracy than the West ever had because China's leadership since Mao's death, has been about doing what Mao used as a floundering but never allowed in practice, i.e. "the dictatorship of the people". Take the example of Covid where the modern "Communist Party" was forced to submit to the people's age-old Confucian respect for the elderly, i.e. protect them from contagion - and then again because of the will of the people (with a little "help" from the CIA) to open up when Omicron turned out to be mild. We should all be afraid of the US - not be against China. The Silicon Valley bank could be the beginning of the end for the rotten United States — and hopefully the beginning of a better and more peaceful United States! The current direction only leads to regression and perhaps war. In the West, politicians try to brainwash voters with the help of US-controlled or influenced media, while in China it is exactly the opposite, that is, the leadership is constantly (not only in elections as in the West) sensitive to the will of the people. And why is the US/CIA/West on the side of the Islamists - in the same way that they are on NATO's side by constantly spitting CIA lies about China?! China is the opposite of threat compared to the US/NATO/West. But the U.S. has since the dollar theft in 1971, painted itself into a corner - which modern China's R&D frms have laid bare to anyone (who wants) that sUSA should be put out of business and pay for its dollar theft in 1971-, but instead allows the US's so-called "allies" to deceive themselves as useful idiots under the US criminal dollar hegemony. OIC has checked the senseless alleged "genocide" against muslims in China and not only found any evidence but instead even praised China's leadership for its good treatment of muslims. Islamism supporting USA and its Western "allies" behave exactly as the most conservative Taliban, i.e. not letting the women out in education and work. And the Western lies about Hong Kong and democracy is just against democracy, because the West tries to support a tiny (CIA influenced?) anti-China movement - which is exactly the opposite to the agreed "one country, two systems" principle - which clearly excludes the possibility of Hong Kong not belonging to China. And Taiwan is less wealthy per capita than Hong Kong and a huge part of the Taiwanese actually want to belong to mainland China.
The ultimate U.S. hypocrisy against China: When all muslims' world organization O.I.C. visits Xinjiang etc. and thanks Beijing for its good treatment of muslims - then US cherry picks CIA and BBC fake "reports" based on interviews with jihadist families or cases of prison or police abuse (which happen in every country - and especially in US). It's appalling that the West supports OIC's sharia which violates the most basic of Universal Human Rights, but doesn't listen to OIC when it comes to China!

Google censors Human Rights!

Necrophilia vs Human Rights

$-freeloader U.S. is the worst threat to the world!

Warning, don't invest in US because it's going down! How? It's not the debt ceiling nor the dollar per se but simply because US can't keep up with China's R&D, which fact will become inevitably apparent for consumers globally. US makes its own rules and imposes them globally. China makes its own rules and lets others do their own (the Global Security Initiative). US' dollar theft from 1971- is coming to an end when people realize that after China's rise US is no longer an asset but a risk - then US bonds will be worthless. So to keep floating US abuses its weaker "allies" while calling China "enemy". Don't let a declining and dangerous U.S. take over your country! U.S. tries in vain to contain China so to be able to continue its criminal dollar hegemony by sucking money and blood from the rest of the world in the wake of its massive dollar theft beginning in 1971 when U.S. betrayed its promise to keep the dollar fixed to gold. The undemocratic U.S. Fed then in effect became the world's financial dictator. U.S. dollar theft means a general decrease in purchasing power outside U.S., i.e. the price the world has to pay for U.S. stolen wealth. U.S. is the only country in the world that despite trade deficit and massive national debt, via its criminal dollar hegemony can force the rest of the world to pay for it. You need a super computer to exactly calculate U.S. debt to the world. However the suffering caused by U.S. fraud and militarism is even beyond a super computer. Let the world vote about whether U.S. should be defaulted and prosecuted! Western politicians - seduced by the popular Old Nordic dialect (or creole) called English - seem to reason that by being "allied" with $-freeloader U.S. ("the greater U.S.") they will benefit technologically and financially. But the reality (1971-) is just the opposite. Only Japan and Korea can compete with China when it comes to homogenity, general IQ, education amd R&D - except that they are ten times smaller, and their cooperation with the extortionist parasite U.S. will inevitably weaken them. In a very short future not only Wall Street and some tech geeks, but people in general will start understanding they took the wrong train going in the wrong direction on a faulty track into the arms of an armed blood sucking dying giant.

We live in a world in which an authoritarian state, $-freeloader narcissistic U.S., controls the digital infrastructure, enjoys the dominant position in the world's technology platforms, controls the means of production for critical technologies, and harnesses a new wave of general purpose technologies, like biotech and new energy technologies, to transform the world society, economy and military, to continue feeding U.S.' parasitic needs. However, the really funny thing is that US smears China for exactly what US itself is.
Why didn't NATO (US) stop the real genocide and grave Human Rights violations (since 2014) in Ukraine?! And when Russia did, the NATO (US) attacked Russia. And what about the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's atrocities in Yemen - just to mention one from the Saudi pile?!

China is now not only outperforming the West technologically but also the capitalist country that has come the furthest in balancing greed for the good of the people. In contrast to communist dictatorships such as the Soviets, Mao's China, North Korea and others, modern China is more democratic than most Western countries. This is because, via a meritocratic system, political career is built from the bottom up, i.e. local politicians must show results in order to move forward, while together they later form a political communication link between Beijing and the people, which means that unlike dictatorships, it is the top that is most sensitive to grassroots dissatisfaction. And this is proven in several Western research projects which unilaterally show a popular support that is sky-high above, for example, the US. Peter Klevius art analysis: When kings possessed antidemocratic total power (as the Saudi islamofascist murderer and terrorist war criminal "king" still today), they could deliberately show off their personhood. However, when kingdom became art - not to say sign post - then a "good" king or queen became someone who like Elizabeth had to shut up and instead be filled with the content of "the eye of the beholder" - just like art, which is always excluded from its artist. My guess is that she could only really trust her husband - 'husband' is Swedish meaning 'hus' (house) and 'band' means ties like in 'bond'. However, her son Charles has an extremely poor record at that - which may be entertaining, especially for republicans.

US should be the "enemy" rather than modern China

And when will Liz Truss declare the islamofascist "custodians of islam", the Saudi dictator family - who has murdered, tortured, terrorized and committed war crimes - an enemy? With the U.S. dollar as the world's main reserve currency - since 1971 criminally disconnected from its promised gold connection - and with the U.S. controlling global financial and monetary flow U.S. has raised massive debt while printing money - not "out of thin air" but out of the world. The U.S. economy hence rests on financial colonialism and imperialism, i.e. forcibly robbing its value from other countries. And when excess liquidity drives up global inflation, and the Fed raises interest rates and tightens monetary policy, it also widens its interest rate gap with other countries, while attracting international capital to the otherwise empty (and doomed) U.S. dollar. The Brits should blame US, the militant financial $-freeloader (since 1971) - not modern China, the peaceful tech and wealth building rescuer at home and around the world! Bank of England is a helpless pawn against the feds. At the very moment when especially UK but also the rest of the world needs China the most, then dangerous and militant (CIA steered?) Liz Truss declares China an "enemy". Hello! It's US that 2014 ignited the low scale Ukrainian civil war to a fullblown deadly genocide against Russians, and 2022 to a real proxy war via NATO threatening Russia for the ultimate purpose of attacking China. And it is the US' antidemokratic (decoupled from democratic institutions) Federal Reserve that is behind inflation and the fall of the pound and other financial problems outside US. US is the only country in the world that can survive heavy deficit by counterfeiting money. It's US that is the root of high inflation, energy costs, supply shortages etc. (because of modern China). The feds has since 1913 been the factual dictator of US, and when US became bankrupt after a costly Vietnam war and space (incl. military) program it 1971 unscrupulously cheated with the promised dollar connection to gold. US hence started a fullblown robbing of the world with the dollar as the world currency and now culminating in an untenable money printing that together with China's economic and tech rise threatens US criminal $-freeloading. US is a theocracy if measured by how much "in god we trust" is involved in policy and politics, and that the Supreme Court is 100% religious, in stark contrast to the huge number of Atheist people in US. This has also led to US using islamists against China.

How come that this US patriot shares Peter Klevius view on US?

Peter Klevius 2012 updated human evolution map

Peter Klevius 2012 updated human evolution map
Whereas anyone can bacome a researcher, to qualify as a scientist you also need top intelligence and a very good overview of the topic. Long time ago profssors used to at least fulfil the latter. However, due to an increase in non-scientific influence this is no longer the case - which opens up a wonderful workspace for Peter Klevius. So why trust Peter Klevius instead of professors, BBC and other trolls? Because 1. Peter Klevius lacks such vulnerabilities and has a much higher IQ (beware of IQ-phobia) than most professors or world leaders - not to mention journalists 2. Peter Klevius has a long and clean life record when it comes to women, children, crimes, drugs etc. 3. Peter Klevius has no finacial or career ties to anything he writes about 4. Peter Klevius doesn't (sadly) know (20220326) a single Russian or Chinese, and has never visited the countries nor having any other connections 5. Peter Klevius groundbreaking scientific achievements (e.g. about evolution, consciousness, sex segregation, sociology, psychoanalysis etc.) can all be dated to publications, theses (and after 1998 also on the web) or correspondence with professors considered top of their game. Possibly all of them may also qualify as first of its kind - or at the very least certainly not copied from others - as others seem to do with Peter Klevius' works, without even giving him credit. 6. Peter Klevius had the most unprivileged start of life and adulthood - but also the most privileged when it comes to brain power, dopamin-serotonin balance and psychological stability - to an extent that he can't possibly believe in the psychological non sense excuse that "we're all a little mad".

Peter Klevius to Boris Johnson: It was only half of the Brits who voted Brexit, and it was only half of the Ukrainians who voted for Ukrexit. However, in Ukraine it ended with civil war instigated by UK's ally $-freeloader rogue state US. You should really have kept your peaceful Huawei instead of being pushed to the militant F35!
US has already sunk below the surface but abuses the "West" as its snorkel. What most people don't realize is that by following US you step downwards in future development compared to China. Little Japan already showed the world how to beat the West in technology. China is more than ten times bigger. And when people - sooner or later - realize the difference, the backlash will be harsh. Peter Klevius asks: Which war (post WW2) has NOT been instigated by rogue state $-freeloader US? Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine, Libya, Yemen, Syria etc.. US, which has also used nukes, biological wepons, and torture, tops by far the list of war criminals - and US allies are gravely complicit!
We're constantly told "not to incite hatred against muslims" when we're just criticizing sharia islam for its lack of Human Rights. However, when US/CIA not only incites hatred but also weaponizes it, no one in the West seems to care. Why?! How many more should suffer and die because of US senseless behavior when facing a future where its $-freeloading is coming home to roost because of China's success?

World economies (CIA World Factbook 2022): 1 China 2/3 US, EU 4 India 5 Japan 6 Germmany 7 Russia 8 Brazil 9 France 10 UK
Dear reader, stop supporting/aiding dangerous rogue state US! Otherwise US $-desperation (i.e. that it will lose its financial stealing hegemony because of China's growth) will lead to it deliberately starting a WW3. Except for human suffering and lower standard, it would be the great reset for $-freeloader US to stand in the ruins and continue being a stealing and ruling world dictator. No other country poses a similar threat.
Religion is segregation. Judaism: We are the chosen people! Christianity: Christ will forgive, you sinner! Islam: Everyone is born muslim, you infidel! Human Right is de-segregation, you human!
Peter Klevius wonders if you can spot the difference between the People's republic of China, the Congress' republic of US, and the Parliament's/government's "democracy" of UK. Hint, the clue is in the word 'people' and the fact that Chinese are more satisfied with their democracy than US and UK people. Moreover, can you spot the difference between modern China and Stalin's, Mao's, Castro's, Pol Pot's etc. Communist countries? And when it comes to unjust sentencing, spying, surveilling, detaining/torturing/killing people, US is definitely worse than China. Not to mention US global meddling, militarism and dictatorial fiat $-freeloading. A US that can't manufacture its own chips but tries to hinder China from it. And if you aren't on US sponsored IS-Uyghurs side - why spit on China?! And if you aren't on US sponsored IS-Uyghurs side - why spit on China?! Why is US calling anti-islamism "human rights violation"?! And when will US stop dealing with Saudi, NATO (e.g. Turkey) etc. Human Rights violators?!Btw, Peter Klevius suggests buying Chinese property stocks now. After all, there are more rural Chinese than the entire US population, waiting for getting urban after this temporary slow down.
Why doesn't Peter Klevius publish his groundbreaking science in Nature? Because he has no peers! Peer review, according to Google, is the evaluation of work by people with similar competence. Peter Klevius healthy mind and total lack of institutional/financial/political/career bias combined with extra high intelligence is unique in science - and it's precisely therefore his best scientific achievments can't be evaluated by peer-biased people but need a blog to be presented because 1) they would never be peer approved in Nature 2) they would never be produced in a "proper" form with painstaking efforts to squeeze in citations/references etc. that contribute nothing. Whom should Peter Klevius quote about EMAH/consciousness, out-of SE Asia, or about hetersosexual attraction and sex segregation? When I made my phd on sex segregated resistance against female football I was asked to quote feminists. I did, and after every quote I had to negate it. Alternatively it would have silenced the women's voices in my in-depth interviews re. thair experience about resistance. After all, it was feminists behind the 1921 ban against women's football in England, and it was the most powerful feminists in Sweden who for a decade opposed girls and women playing football after the Swedish FA had included it. So instead of me testing Nature, you test me - before "anti-feminism", "anti-out-of-Africa" and "anti-religion" are criminalized as "hate speech"! - In anthropology fossils usually get all kinds of nicknames before scientifically "baptized". However, precisely because Homo floresiensis (the definite proof that humans evolved in SE Asia) was the "missing link" that afropologists wanted to find in Africa (how could an allround mover and allround eater ever evolve on a continent?!) they needed to dismiss it at every level incl. continue calling it a "hobbit". And when it comes to EMAH/consciousness it's extremely simple - yet not "simplistic" at all. However, the culprit is what humans are most proud about, i.e. language. By giving something one doesn't comprehend but wants to put in a package, a name, will continue to contain its blurred definition. This is why EMAH only deals with 'now' and the body of past this now lands on. Of course this leads to everything having "consciousness". A brick "remembers" a stain of paint as long as it's there - and with some "therapeutical" investgation in a laboratory perhaps even longer. And a stain of paint on your skin is exactly the same. However, unlike the the brick you've also got a brain that may also be affected by the stain. This could be compared with a hollow brick where the paint has vanished from the outside but submerged so that when cutting the brick it "remembers" it and tells the cutting blade about it. And for more "sophistication" just add millions of differect colors unevenly spread. Our brain is no different from the rest of the body. If Frankenstein with tomorrow's tech had created an adult human body, then that body wouldn't be able to walk or talk etc. because it lacked the body program we've been programmed with by living.
The US-led climate hoax against China: $-freeloader US uses its hegemony to cover up the worst global threat, i.e. itself. And targets China which challenges its hegemony. A sustained and coordinated campaign aimed at undermining the credibility of China. China is already way more democratic than US - especially when considering that its infrastructure today is already where it inevitably will be tomorrow in a technologically lagging US. In other words, technology itself puts ever more distinction on our behavior - compare e.g. the shift from unmarked cash to marked card/online payments. And as an extra bonus China has extremely low criminality, better privacy law, and incredible record of improving poverty and welfare both home and abroad compared to US. Just consider how US has painted itself into a corner by the 1971 cheating that disconnected the dollar from US' own means, hence creating a situation with no other return than lowering its standard (i.e. stopping printing dollar that the rest of the world have had to pay for due to US' global financial empire tentacles) or a new war (which US is already brewing). Where US uses CIA meddling, sanctions and militarism, China has risen with honest manufacturing and trade.
Peter Klevius: Do note that my is an experimental webmuseum made 2003 and deliberately hasn't been touched upon since 2007.
20211103: Why is BBC 4 news so silent about CIA's murder plot and ongoing extradition request against Julian Assange, but instead has plenty of news time to repeatedly tell listeners about some cricket player (muslim?) who 'was allegedly hurt' because of 'verbal abuse'?
$-freeloader US is the main driver of dangerous global militarism and state terror. It's also a many times bigger per capita polluter than China. Why is BBC repeating the lie that "China is the biggest polluter" when in fact it's one of the smallest?! And the only reason to not use per capita would be that China, unlike e.g. similar size Africa, has a single government. But even then China shines as the by far best led country. China is the technological future that we all have to walk - not led by the Chinese, but by technology. And because of US's desperation as its dollar-thieving (since 1971) is now threatened by China irresistibly passing them technologically and economically, China actually serves as a protected "soft landing model" for the future AI world (China's new privacy law, tech crackdown etc.) is exactly what most people want), while aggressive U.S. is a threat to peace and prosperity. Google is precisely the state link Chinese companies are accused of being, and US's "alliance" with "colored" and muslims is basically Sinophobia, i.e. the fear of losing control of those whom it has abused - it simply divides the world into good colored/religious and evil Chinese/Atheists (and evil whites who disagree). US-led "anti-communism" is not about communism or any belief that China would attack the rest of the world (as the US has done, after all). Almost everyone understands that today's China has nothing in common with Cuba, the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, and Mao's China.
20210926 UK became even more a totalitarian right wing militaristic one party state when Labour cut off its left wing. And unlike China, UK has no meritocracy demand on MPs, nor has it any people's democracy even close to that of China (just consider how the Western, US steered, media told you Xi ordered less gaming for kids when in fact it was a broad demand from parent). And China forces its companies to use less energy - and the Sinophobic West of course spits on this environmental effort when some energy companies break the limits and can't deliver.

The West, not China, is the biggest emitter of pollution. What's not to like about China?! Best privacy law: least crimes: best high tech: best tech control: best poverty extermination: best manufacturer: best meritocratic democracy happiness: best trust in leadership, applauded by OIC for treatment of muslims, etc. And badly behaving $-freeloader and financial (and militaristic) global dictator U.S. jailed Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in a foreign country for her normal business in an other foreign country (whose prsidential candidate was murdered by US in a third foreign country) that US didn't happen to like as it didn't like the success of Chinese Huawei.

How $-freeloader US has robbed the world since 1971

China hating bigoted and hypocritical West (i.e. US+puppets) - which strangly calls itself "the international community" - worries about Taliban sharia while West's close ally, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (behind 9/11 and most other islamic terror) has the most medieval form of sharia of any muslim country! Btw, most feminists are sharia muslims - and feminism ticks most fascism boxes. Peter Klevius to his readers: Never forget that fascism emerged in the very midst of what is now in anti-China rhetoric called "the international community" or the West. And the roots of Western fascism has never been treated but live on. Ask yourself, what if China had behaved like the murderous terror rogue state $-freeloader U.S.?!

Islamism wants islamic "human rights". Feminism wants women's "human rights". Peter Klevius wants Human Rights. Together with their close ally Saudi Arabia, US and its puppet UK have among the worst Human Rights records - yet they blame China and Russia instead. Fact correcting BBC's lies: Rogue state $-freeloader U.S. is also the by far much worse per capita greenhouse gas polluter than China.
Peter Klevius (the only serious anthropologist?!) to afropologists: If you honestly and with simple words would explain the essence of the out-of-Africa myth/hoax to a child s/he wouldn't believe a word of your story: A cold adapted (mongoloid phenotype) population P1 (Homo sapiens), which eats everything and has almost infinite time and skills to move anywhere on land - lives all over a southern "island" (Africa) that has an easily accessible bridge (Sinai) to an other "island" (Eurasia), but somehow cannot get out for hundreds of thousands of years. And when they tried they couldn't survive on places where their primitive relatives (Homo erectus) for 2 million years had thrived all over the places from the tropics to the northern cold. Then the kid would probably ask why you keep telling things that make no sense. And when you answer by saying that this now living population P2 on the warm island - but with features seen in all cold adapted populations P3 far north of the bridge - has the oldest DNA, then the kid would probably ask you if you have ever considered the possibility that those genes were aquired in the cold north far on the other side of the bridge. And your last resort to convince the child concists of some bone fragments that fit in a shoe box together with a decent pair of shoes - and there is no agreement about what they really are - and are the only thing we have between the chimp-like Lucy and the human-like erectus. And what would you answer when the kid then asks how a tiny Lucy-like (poor bipedalism) population A4 could possibly make it out of Africa all the way over the Wallace line to Flores as well as to the Philippines, long before Homo sapiens managed to do so? Peter Klevius suggests you and your kids learn from the best: Peter Klevius theory Speciation needs isolation over time and the best evolutionary lab has been SE Asian archipelago. Like all primates, carnivores, ungulates etc. we also came out of SE Asia with a new brain setup (due to island shrinking and mainland enlargement of this new brain setup), got coldadapted in the north and then spread all over the world while mixing with other Homo sapiens in a pattern easily recognizable.

Peter Klevius evolution formula: From production (isolation) to end consumption (diversity).

Peter Klevius evolution formula.

Peter Klevius serious questions to you "out of Africa" believer! Ask yourself: How come that the oldest primates came from outside Africa; that the oldest great ape divergence happened outside Africa; that the oldest bi-pedals are from outside Africa; that the only australopithecines with a Homo skull lived as far from Africa you can get; that the oldest truly modern looking skull is from eastern China (and to Chris Stringer - its slightly archaic bun fits a very old age); that the oldest Africans are mongoloid; that the latest genetic mix that shaped the modern human happened in northern Asia and is traced to SE Asia; that the earliest sophisticated art (e.g. a drilled and polished perfect shiny stone bracelet from Siberia, perfect paintings and figurines) and tools (e.g. a perfect sewing needle, flutes etc) are found from Iberia to Sulawesi - but not in Africa so far; that the oldest round skulled Homo sapiens in sub-Saharan Africa is much younger than similar skulls in Eurasia; that we lack ancient enough DNA from Africa to use as evidence (although afropologists happily do), etc. etc.? Peter Klevius theory answers all these questions - and more.
U.S. main brain asset is East Asians - same with China... East-Asians (mostly Chinese) also took most gold medals in Tokyo Olympics. China won shared gold in the gold-medal race (39 golds - why are some excluding Hong Kong's gold).
Peter Klevius suggests taking the knee for Human Rights instead of for certain "races" based on skin color, religion - or sex.
The main threat against Taiwan is U.S. starting a war. But China just has to wait until the Taiwanese anyway want to rejoin because of Cnina's fast growing superior R&D, high tech, infrastructure, privacy law, economy etc.. For U.S. it's just the opposite. And West's hollow rant about "liberty" and "party-democracy" echoes back against China's democracy where the Chinese vote for truly merited individuals and against corruption. And Chinese hightech will, after some political delay come near you anyway - while in the meantime being called "assertive threat from CCP". And there's no more "Communism" in China's progress than there is Christianity in U.S' militaristic war mongering, criminal sanctions, $-freeloading, extrajudicial murders, unfair justice, torture, spying on everyone, use of islamists etc.. U.S. "Americans"! Payback time! When Peter Klevius bought his Japan made Citizen Eco Drive chronograph watch it cost ~ $240 in US and ~ $340 in EU. Those ~ $100 is what "American" (i.e. U.S. people - not all Americans) $-freeloaders owe to the rest of the world because of benefitting locally by money printing and pricing the main global reserve currency - but the end is near. $100 trillions - or more?!
Apoorva Mandavilli (New York Times): "Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here." Peter Klevius wonders what made her later delete it?! Fiat-money-world-$-freeloader-US' intention is not at all to clarify anything but instead to keep up hate against China. Would Fiat-money-world-$-freeloader-US and its UK puppet let Chinese inspect Fort Detrick and over 200 US bio-labs all over the world and UK's notorious military research at Porton Down, Salisbury. So while Chinese and "Chinese" looking people now are the most harrassed, BBC gives it no real attention while filling its news with BLM and "worries about islamophobia". Btw, if you poke any s.c. "free speech debate" you'll always find islamic efforts for "blasphemy" laws - and never laws against real blasphemy against basic negative Human Rights of 1948. The West has abandoned Human Rights for the sake of sharia islam and is again becoming what it fought against - itself. Communistphobia (an "autoimmune" reaction now boosted by US' collapse and due aggression) led to Fascism, Nazism and WW2. Why do the worst (per capita and consumption) militant polluters and hypocrites (Fiat $-freeloaderUS, UK, Australia etc.) lie about China. the world's best source for cleaner tech?! Fiat $-freeloader US' influence behind Sinophobic attacks against China, the world's by far largest economy and future of tech, privacy law and Human Rights, and with less assaults, rapes and murders etc. than e.g. US and EU, while the "democratic West" turns sharia theocratic and militant. And why is islamism called "religion" and Confuzianism "propaganda"?! Peter Klevius: Why would religious precepts and Human Rights denial be more worthy of protection than political ones? After all, Human Rights are there to guide legislators and the Chinese trust their politicians much more than Westerners trust theirs. So there's a case to be made against anti-China hate propaganda which harmfully affects Chinese and "Chinese" looking people. The senseless flaw of monotheism: The pompous self-delusion of oneself as "god's" chosen individual while projecting one's "beliefs" on "god's" chosen "community" - which in turn projects a collectivist "belief" on its individuals. Freedom of thought doesn't mean freedom from law - and freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from Human Rights. The only "ideology" that flawlessly fits negative Human Rights is Atheism (not believeing in any supremacist "god"). Lod/Lydda in Israel should be a warning that convinces anyone about the necessity to abandon racist and sexist monotheist religions and instead support the basic negative Human Rights of 1948 to guide legislation and behavior for a positive human future for all. When should islam pay for 1400 years of genocides?

Why African continent was impossible for Homo speciation and SE Asian volatile archipelago perfect for human evolution. Africa's indigenous people (with the oldest genes have cold adapted Asian features. Lack of transitional fossils (H erectus appeared out of the blue) and aDNA. Oldest bipedals in Eurasia. Oldest modern (HSS) humans from Asia. Denisova aDNA Homo mix, oldest art, oldest sewing needle. H floresiensis can't possibly have come from Africa and is certainly not a dwarfed H erectus.

Why is it that the West allows islamic abuse of the positive Human Right to religion even when (OIC etc.) it clearly violates the most basic negative Human Rights of others? It's not a Human Right to desecrate Human Rights.

The West (and the world) has to disconnect legislation from religion and reconnect to basic (negative) Human Rights as agreed 1948. Negative Human Rights are the only true ones (because they respect and protect every individual human from religious etc. impositions) - and are lacking in islam (e.g. OIC's sharia). Islam's original formula: Attack, rob, kill, rape, humilate and enslave - and blame the victim for being an "infidel"! Confucius (551–479 BCE) about Ren (the basis of Confucianism): "Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself. And if you seek Ren you've already found it. Rén is human."

Why Peter Klevius 1992 brain/mind/"consciousness" theory is the only one that fits reality - but not human bias.

20210503: The world needs urgently a tougher stance on US and its aggressive hypocrisy and criminal behavior! Every anti-China rant Western politicians puke is licking a sick US ass and boosted by populist Sinophobic Western nationalism. New Zealand is now blamed for not spying and hating China enough while the criminal Saudi dictator family is a close ally and OIC's violations of Human Rights is ok.

20210416: US' puppet sidekick UK cowardly runs away when it cannot hide in the master's shadow anymore - leaving Afghanistan's women without protection against islamic evil.

US declares Turkish murder and islamization of more than a million Armenians a genocide while UK declares China's de-islamization and education of backward Chinese Uyghurs a "genocide".

Joe Biden's threat: "China will not become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world on my watch!”
And history proves US is the dangerous one that wants to dictate and bully the world to keep its $-freeloader hegemony.
Xi Jinping: "China will never seek hegemony, no matter how strong it becomes."
And he has the longest civilization to back it up with.

Peter Klevius warns the Brits about the danger posed by spy master Jeremy Fleming
's delusional, dangerous and Sinophobic China "analysis" which, if followed, may lead to stagnation and even US initiated war. It's all about UK either chosing a dangerous puppet status under US decline and stagnation by supported US' populist riding on pre-existing anti-Chinese (and anti-mongoloid racism, compare e.g. footballer Son Heung-Min and BBC lacking to report hate crimes against Chinese etc) sentiments - or simply benefitting from China's success through cooperation. The "danger" of new Chibese surveillance tech becomes ok later on in the West. However, China has now better privacy protection than the West, and China's meritocratic political representation combined with the world's toughest anti-corruption, makes West look bleak in comparison. And unlike UK, China has a real written constituion that gives women the same rights as men without exeption - someting US is still lacking, as are UK's sharia courts.

Don't respect islam as long as islam doesn't respect Human Rights! And if you don't trust Peter Klevius (2001-) on this, then trust Council of Europe's (2019) basically similar criticism of islam's main worldly (except for Gabriel) representative, Saudi based and steered OIC's Human Rights violating sharia declaration CDHRI! Moreover, the most pious muslims seem to be the ones furthest distancing themselves from Human Rights.

Peter Klevius to the women of Greenham Common: Aren't the Saudi allied and posturing "in cheat and global nUKes we trust" right wing Sinophobic Brexiters a bigger threat than Iran?

BBC is the world's main spreader of anti-Sinoist hate speech and populist Sinophobic propaganda on an industrial scale and therefore guilty of inciting crimes against humanity!

First spitting on China and when China reacts using it as an excuse for more spitting on China.

The original (negative) Human Rights (1948) means the individual is not to be imposed an action of another individual, group, government, religion etc. Negative Human Rights hence function as the guidance and guardian against unneccessarily restricting legislation. Sharia islam, i.e. in praxis Saudi based and steered OIC's notorious* sharia declaration, is the very opposite. However, UK and BBC seem to approve of islam's Human Rights violations while calling China's efforts to stifle them "human rights abuse".

* Similarly criticized by Peter Klevius and the Council of Europe. Are both "islamophobes"?!

Global China for peace and wealth vs. "global UK" for more hate incitement, lies, threats, nukes, warmonger and miltarism under the shield of the militaristic world dictator and $-freeloader US. Compare this to UN's Resident Coordinator in China, Siddharth Chatterjee, who says "we stand in a unique position to cooperate with the Government of China and apply its successes of lifting hundreds of million people out of poverty globally. China has shown its firm belief in the principles of multilateralism. As I witnessed in Kenya, China's donations of personal protective equipment and other supplies played a critical role during the disruption in global supply chains in March 2020. And every day I am in China, I am inspired by what I see around me, what China has achieved and can achieve as a country."

But US/UK do their utmost to stop "assertive Chinese influence". And a Sinophobic parliament shouts "genocide" when China protects women's Human Rights.

Without a fair reason UK declares Chinese a "threat" while Brits and other "infidels" are constantly threatened by Human Rights violating islamism.

20210320: The world's master fake news troll farm BBC today still uses conspiracy theorist, warmonger and China hater Pompeo to smear China and spread anti-Sinoism - but nothing about islamist Human Rights violating atrocities (e.g. 50 children beheaded by islamists in Mocambique etc.), !? Btw, UK abducts proportionally many more children than China - and expose them to islamist child abuse. Peter Klevius feels truly ashamed of looking like a Westerner. Btw, how can you excuse US criminal behavior: First benefitting from monopolizing global web tech and then using this monopoly as a weapon against competitors?!

$-freeloader US and its UK puppet don't care about the wellbeing of Chinese
but want only to damage China's success. Sinophobic UK parliament should just shut up talking about China and democracy. People living legally in their own state EU were robbed of their democracy by UK! And even UK nationals are just subjects, not citizens.

BBC, the world's worst war mongering and hate spreading propaganda troll farm, uses Chinese "Guantanamo"* prisoner fotage out of context as "evidence" of how "truthful" BBC is! * US detained muslim terrorist suspects outside US! BBC stereotypes whatever to fit "genocide" in China but doesn't mind US-UK-Australian torture and murder of civilians. Where China stands for tech and wealth development $-freeloader US + UK-Australia stand for spreadinng lies and militarist tensions. And why so silent about UK torture of Assange while declaring an Iranian spy suspect as "innocent" simply because she says so (Iran, like US, doesn't approve of double citizenship).

Uncritical democracy with islam inevitably means the death of Human Rights. Peter Klevius probably has some half of muslims on his side in saying so.

BBC welcomes Jo Johnson when he now says "China is authoritarian, almost neo-totalitarian regime". Peter Klevius wonders how that fits with a country which leadership is much more approved of than Western ones?! Even an idiot (but not BBC) can see that China's modern Communism has nothing to do with Maoism or Soviet Communism. The only criticism left the West can come up with is name calling. The welfare, progress and out of poverty success for Chinese people has nothing in common with "conventional Communism". On the contrary, it delivers exactly where s.c. "democracies" (one might even argue that China is closer to democracy than the West) often fail. "Democracies" are anyway one party states supported by at the most some half of the population compared to China's qualified majority. So China's "authoritarian" Communist "dictatorship" is as far you can get from the West's beloved Sunni islamist theocracy, steered by the murderous and war crimes committing Saudi dictator family. So why is China declared an enemy while Saudi is an ally! Moreover, China's new privacy law will protect the individual much better than any similar laws in in the West. Why? Because China's leadership thinks the individual's privacy is too important to fiddle with (read the draft). Something the West has given up (to US). And who was it that started smearing, lying, spreading rumours and conspiracy theories, military threats etc. against China in the forst place? Sinophobic racism from the West for the purpose of aiding the US $-freeloader.

Peter Klevius: Every muslim is responsible for muslims racism and sexism. So stop shouting "you're not a muslim" to a muslim who believes and knows the Koran by heart! Immigration is ok - if you criminalize anti-Human Rights sharia muslims (and their accompllices)!

In cheat we trust: UK decreases aid to Yemen while increasing weapons sale to the muslim Saudi dictator family and spending more on militarism. And BBC is more concerned about Uyghurs than Yemenites. And worries more about Buddhists who don't like to be attacked, raped, murdered etc. than about their radicalized muslim attackers.

Lord Palmerston, UK PM who supported the Confederacy in the US civil war, hoping a dissolution of the Union would weaken the US: "The Chinese are uncivilized and the British must attack China to show up their superiority as well as to demonstrate what a civilized nation could do."

US is now the worst global threat that only cooperating with China could mitigate - instead of being US' puppets. Peter Klevius: Why is US ordering 600 new nukes - i.e. the double of China's total?
Why is China the only NPT state to give an unqualified negative security assurance with its "no first use"?
Why isn't UK's parliament more interested in the real genocide in Yemen than the made up "genocide" in Xinjiang?!
Why is UK applauding the conviction of Syrian soldiers while UK soldiers go free from similar crimes against humanity.
Why isn't the real genocide that muslim Uyghurs have committed against non-muslim Uyghurs talked about?!
When Dominic Raab visited Saudi Arabia he failed to raise the question of Saudi Human Rights abuses.However, in UN he lied about "China's industrial scale Human Rights abuses". He deliberately conflated unchecked BBC "reports" by East Turkestan jihadis with China's out of poverty and de-radicalization programs. And of course forgot to say sterilization was offered after three (3) children and with economical and educational incentives for muslim women tied at home by sharia.

The militant $-freeloader US' spread of misinfo about China has made Chinese the most hated ethnicity while sharia muslims are the most protected - and US' puppet UK's Dominic Raab keeps spitting Sinophobia while supporting anti-Human Rights islamism.

Peter Klevius (like e.g. most really intelligent Jews is an Atheist, not confined with "faith", politics, career, finance etc.): While the West accepts OIC's Human Rights violating sharia islamism, China defends Human Rights against islamism. And unlike US' constitution, China's constitution is fully aligned with women's rights in the 1948 Human Rights declaration. So to avoid the West turning into a full muslim theocracy (OIC sharia) fractioned in infighting, we better become Sinophils instead of Sinophobes! "Anti-democratic ommunism" is now the only (empty - the only difference is that MPs in China are under harder scrutiny) argument the West still swings.

20210127, BBC (fake) News: "We are memorizing 6 million Jews in Holocaust." Peter Klevius: So why not include the more than 6 million non-Jews?! See BBC's diabolically wild lies about Uighurs!

Many Afgan women's dream is to be treated like Uighur women in China. However, the criminal militaristic war mongering rogue state U.S. abandons them and instead declares islamist Uighur terrorists not terrorists anymore and accuses China's emancipation efforts for "genocide" and "human rights violation".

1990 islam officially and globally (via UN) rejected Human Rights (the Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration witch gravely violates the most basic of Human Rights)!

If Atheist Chinese had reproduced like muslims, there'd be more s.c. "Mongoloids" than the whole world population today.

BBC is the world's biggest lying and faking propaganda troll - BBC's agenda has absolutely nothing to do with journalistic principles but is a mix of US pressure spiced with the worst of "Britishness" (UK cuts foreign aid from 0.7-0.5% and adds the same money to militarism) meeting in Saudi/OIC islamofascist sharia against basic Human Rights. BBC: UK has to aid Saudi war crimes and genocides cause else Russia and China would do it. UK's future is as a militaristic puppet for US (compare BBC's campaign against Johnson and Corbyn). Peter Klevius to BBC's Sinophobic muslim presenters in their ivory minaret: How many muslim women are detained in UK's sharia camps?

US secretary of state, Pompeo declares Islamic State Uighur jihadi not terrorists - so they can attack China and get support from US (as in Syria).

Peter Klevius to Chinese people: I'm not a racist Sinophobe - although I certainly look like one.
I also wonder when US women will get the same rights as Chinese women - ERA is still lacking from US constitution? Chinese constitution, Article 2: Women shall enjoy equal rights with men in all aspects of political, economic, cultural, social and family life.

The West's entanglement with anti-Human Rights islam has eroded "Western values" beyond recognition. And behind every "Chinese aggression" you'll find US aggression - because US doesn't want to lose its global freeloader position.

Islam, because of its origin (in which it's stuck by Muhammed, sharia and apostasy ban) inevitably paves the way for islamist extremism and due road to medieval backwardness. However, possibly more than half of s.c. "muslims" don't want this anti-Human Rights sharia, but sadly, islam has put all muslims under an apostasy ban, and Western idiots don't give freedom loving "muslims" a helping hand against sharia islam but instead help sharia islamists by calling sound criticism against islam "islamophobia". However, US is the real problem and China's stance against islamist extremism is now, funnily enough, the only defense for freedom and Human Rights - while UN has been hijacked by Saudi based and steered OIC. But wherever you see islamist uprising (e.g. near China or its belt-and-road) - check for US/CIA with a long history of meddling and militarism! US is turning peaceful belt and road into suffering and war - usually by using muslim extremism in the frontline together with massive propaganda via US controlled media and politics.

Nation of Islam: Black lives matter more than other races! Black is original! Peter Klevius: Aka supremacist racism! No, black is adaptive and isn't "original" at all because there's no "black gene". The darkest skin in the world is as far from Africa you can get - and the darkest African skin developed quite recently. And black skin is doomed to vanish anyway. And the Homo lineage was light skinned until 1.2 Myr when they were already all over the old world. And the oldest modern humans are light skinned mongoloids. Educate yourself.

Big Afropological words from a big (on the web) "Piltdown man" - with a PC dwarfed brain? John Hawks' "explanation" to how Homo floresiensis "travelled from Africa to Flores" wouldn't impress a 3-year old.

The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH explaining your brain and AI and what you thought was "consciousness".

Peter Klevius sex tutorial and suggestion for DSM-6. An analysis of sex segregation and heterosexual attraction.
It's an irony that China now seems to offer the only defense of those very Human Rights it's accused of not following - while the West supports islamism that violates those Human Rights (compare Saudi based and steered OIC's global sharia declaration against Human Rights). Moreover, apostasy (i.e. leaving islam, which is the worst crime in islam) and the fact that the muslim man determines the faith for the children no matter who is the mother, together have to be added to any estimation of muslim population growth.

US' and its puppets' Sinophobia campaign rooted in UK's appalling opium wars against Chinese people

US' and its puppets' Sinophobia campaign rooted in UK's appalling opium wars against Chinese people

Why do Sinophobic BBC and UK parliament call it "deradicalization" in UK, US and Saudi Arabia, but "genocide" in China?! And why wasn't one-child policy against Atheist Han Chinese called "genocide" while Uighur muslims were allowed to have many children?! Btw, e.g. Sweden abducts many more children than China does in Xinjiang - and for extremely questionable reasons (read Peter Klevius' thesis Pathological Symbiosis and ask yourself why Sweden gets away with its Human Rights violations). Answer: It's all about U.S. being a lousy loser and therefore behaving appalingly badly with smear, threats, illegal sanctions, militaristic aggression etc! Btw, China is already number one in economy and most technology - and accelerating compared to US. So you stupid US puppets - take note!

Shame on everyone who blinks Saudi based and steered OIC's anti-human rights sharia for all the world's muslims while spitting on China!

Should BBC and some politicians be put on a Nurenberg trial after this relentless and demonizing Sinophobia campaign and deliberate lies?

US is rottening fast and should therefore go for peace and cooperation! Despite using $-freeloading, sanctions, breaking treaties, murdering officials and politicians in other countries during state visits etc., hindering the use of tech previously used to monopolize US companies globally etc., US now wants to destroy Huawei and other Chinese companies, not for security but because US is inevitably losing the tech race. And no, it isn't the Chinese state support any more than US uses state support for force-feeding Apple, Google etc. and backed up by US state militaristic interventions, spying, interference, threats etc. globally. And China was the first to recognize the danger of Covid-19 - not "delaying" anything" but quite the contrary (see below)!
BBC News' deliberately misleading and dangerous anti-China rant 20200706:
"China ought to be our enemy! We can't do any business with China because of Hong Kong, and the sterilization of Uyghur muslims which some people (BBC and its cherry picked guests?!) think amounts to genocide". Peter Kleius: That Chinese muslims should follow the same laws as other Chinese, and that China uses similar deradicalization programmes proposed in the West, BBC thinks is "suppression". And volontary sterilization in the West BBC calls "genocide" in China. And Hong Kong's security law is similar to those in the West - and not as bad as US - and are definitely neccessary to keep "one nation" together under the immense pressure from US and its puppet regimes.

2020 4th of July: Peter Klevius wonders when US women will get the same rights as Chinese women - ERA is still lacking from US constitution? Article 2, Chinese constitution: Women shall enjoy equal rights with men in all aspects of political, economic, cultural, social and family life. Peter Klevius also wonders why aggressive and assertive US attacks peaceful China (every schism has US fingerprints) while siding with the war crimes committing murdeous islamofascist Saudi dictator family whose OIC sharia clearly denies eqaulity for women?! China is doing more good to more people than any other country today. Is this the reason?!

20200701: BBC News asks for war against China but complains "we have only two aircraft carriers". Peter Klevius wonders how sick BBC has become?!

20200618: Why is the most cemtral witness, Inge Morelius (later aka Mårelius) in the Swedish PM Palme's murder case, deleted by Google's search engine from Peter Klevius revealing murder analysis?!

20200616: When China discovers Covid-19 with a European DNA profile on a cutting board for Norwegian salmon, the BBC thinks it's the communist party.
Why is BBC so quiet about Churchill's secret (until 2018) pact with Stalin in 1939 which would have divided Scandinavia between Russia and UK?! And US' NATO puppet Jens Stoltenberg repeats like a parrot his master's voice against China - while a civil war is going on inside NATO between Greece and Turkey.

African Pygmy lives matter! Colonized and enslaved for more than 3,500 years by the Eurasian Bantu etc. intruders we now call Africans. It's a senseless irony that "Africans" (Bantus etc. newcomers) who enslaved and mixed with original Africans (Khoisan and especially Pygmies from whom they got their phenotype) and later were enslaved by muslim Arabs and their "African" collaborators now get a brain drop at the West African ports where islam exported slaves. Any old African genes come from Khoisan and Pygmies - and ultimately out of Asia - not Africa. "Out-of-Africa" and BLM are created by white idiots and only feed supremacism. Read "out-of-Africa" more dangerous than the Piltdown hoax.

Peter Klevius 20200604: What if Floyd had been white or Chinese?! And the officers members of Nation of Islam? And how do we even know that any racism was involved? And what about a fair trial? All human lives matter!
20200603: UK's Sinophobic right wing anti-EU migration Brexiters now want to import 3 million Chinese from Hong Kong!?
20200529: In its everyday Sinophobia rant BBC today managed in one sentence to accuse Chinese, China and Xi separately - and even missing the stock smear, i.e. the "communist party". However in a very near future China will develop and export a world leading ecosystem of non-US software, hardware, fintech, social media, telecom infrastructure etc. that everyone will long for. Stubborn and dumb stiff lipped Sinophobes will become Neanderthals in no time. Sadly few politicians understand how powerful Chinese tech development is. Japan did the same but wasn't hampered by Maoist communism and was ten times smaller. High IQ and an Atheist culture they both have in common.

The pro-Saudi and anti-China "party-within" UK's governing party is committing long term criminal harm to UK. China is the future and US is rottening with accelerating speed (the desperate sanctions against China tell it all). Only tech cooperation with China will benefit Brits and Americans. So why are UK politicians and BBC so eager to shoot their own PM and the Brits in the foot by being dictated by Pompeo, Trump and the Saudi dictator family, and boosted by a general Sinophobia racism? The "communist" scare mongering has no relevance because in practice China behaves in no way different than US - but is under constant smear and subversion attacks. And China's surveillance has actually developed less fast than that of US. US is a rogue state that murders and surveils in other countries (e.g. murdered top politician in Iran and surveilled Merkel - and you). And who likes ISIS and al-Qaeda etc. Uyghur jihadi terrorists anyway? Pompeo, Erdogan and Saudi steered islamofascists.

20200522: BBC and some right wing MPs call it a "draconian move" when China wants to stop foreign interference and people using Molotov cocktails. Really! So what about in UK?!

20200518: BBC again repeated the anti-China lie about "a silenced doctor" by inviting the former right wing and pro-Saudi (anti-)EU Research Group - now (anti-)China Research Group. How bad a journalist isn't Sarah Montague then when she didn't even try to question it - or is she muffled?! Eye dr. Li Wenliang wrongly spread out it could be SARS. It wasn't and just one hour later - and long before any police etc. had contacted him - he corrected his mistake (see fact check below).
$-freeloader US provoking China with war ships while simultaneously "leaking" "classified" rumours. Why?! Its Sinophobia is all about trying to stop China's success as the foremost spreader of wealth and high tech both in China and the world. It's not the leadership but China's success that US can't stand.

BBC sides with whoever Sinophobes - and would probably even have used Goebbels against China if he was still around. UK universities etc. are littered with dangerous Saudi (OIC) anti-Human Rights sharia jihad propaganda (incl. supprt of IS Utghur jihadi) - yet China has always been aggressively smeared all the way since UK's opium war attacks on China when it was declared "inferior" and "uncivilized". Today the problem seems to be that China is too superior and too civilized - but thankfully they have a "communist" party to blame, although the leadership has behaved better than most in the West. And when BBC talks about the "West" against China it actually means US spy organization Five Eyes (with the puppet states Australia, UK, Canada and NZ) and whoever other Sinophobes it can find elsewhere - like the Israel supporting and anti-muslim right wing Axel Springer, Europe's largest media (practically a monpoly) which is accused of e.g. censorship and interference in other countries (just like state media BBC).

Should China sue BBC and UK (not to mention US) and the far-right, anti-China and anti-muslim UK "think tank" the Jackson Society (with associated Sinophobic MPs and lords) - whose Sinophobia (disguised as "against communism" etc.) complements leftist and pro-sharia jihad muslims BBC which now so eagerly gives it a platform, as well as the closely connected US spy organization Five Eyes which has demonized China for years long before Huawei or Covid-19? The lies about China they have spread are indistinguishable from those of Pompeo and Trump. Is this baseless (compared to US/UK) hate mongering really conducive to the welfare of UK? And when China reacts to this massive Sinophobia campaign then BBC calls it "aggressive Chinese propaganda".

US "warns" about China "stealing" vaccine info because US knows that China now produces much better research than US.

BBC anti-China fake 20200506: "Hundreds if not thousands of people were likely to have been infected in Wuhan, at a time when Chinese officials said there were only a few dozen cases." Peter Klevius fact check: BBC deliberately conflates real time confirmed knowledge with calculations in retrospect.

US has made all the mistakes it accuses China for. Here's one from the top of the iceberg: Whistleblower Dr. Rick Bright, the director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, pressed for urgent access to funding, personnel and clinical specimens, including viruses, which he emphasized were all critically necessary to begin development of lifesaving medicines needed in the likely event that the virus spread outside of SE Asia. He was then cut out of critical meetings for raising early alarm about the virus and ousted from his position.

Chinese 5G much more reliable than US' Five Eyes, the world's most dangerous misinfo and conspiracy spreading US spy and smear organization (together with its puppet states UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) which "leaked" a 15-page dossier alleging "probing the possibility" the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As Peter Klevius has said before, it didn't come from bats to humans but from some other host animal. Fake news and anti-China propaganda videos are making false and unfounded claims about "delays" and "late" human to human transmission report. Again, it was only in retrospect anyone could have known the nature of early cases. Many weren't even connectded to the wet market and many weren't affected at all despite intimate contact. Moreover, the wrong early SARS diagnosis was corrected the very same day but spread by a "whistleblower" eye doctor (see fact check below). And despite being first affected China acted better than US etc. countries. 5eyes equals Nazi Goebbels in propaganda misinfo. Every single accusation so far has built on deliberate distortion of facts. And possble improvements in retrospect would have been exactly the same in even the best of Western countroes.

Peter Klevius to Chinese people: I'm not a racist - although I certainly look like one.

Origin of Sinophobia: The 19th century Opium Wars were triggered by UK's imposition of the opium trade upon China. Lord Palmerston regarded the Chinese as uncivilized and suggested that the British must attack China to show up their superiority as well as to demonstrate what a "civilized" nation could do. The resulting concession of Hong Kong compromised China's territorial sovereignty. There's also the background to South China Sea.

"God", "Allah", or whichever "monotheistic" idol is a pathetic fallacy and "monotheism" is a ridiculous and dangerous self-delusion because your "god" is used to defend the undefendable. There are equally many "gods" as there are individuals - and the collective "god" only functions as cherry picked confirmation of the individual's "god". However, the collective "god" may combine individual evil - never individual good, because that can only be achieved by (negative) Human Rights. After all, as Peter Klevius always has said, the only way of being fully human is to allow others full humanhood (what else could possibly unite all humans) - without religious impositions/exclusions.

Pentagon, islam - and China?!

Pentagon, islam - and China?!

Peter Klevius asks for an independent international inquiry on BBC's racist Sinophobia and its support of sharia islamism - incl. how many victims and suffering it has caused because of its worldwide propaganda influence.

In the early 1990's US accused Japan of selling superior cars in US without buying crappy cars from US. And a congress woman warned for tech theft if selling US planes to Japan - but was told that those planes wouldn't even fly without Japanese high tech. At the same time EU was created to build a trade wall against Japanese products. However, Japan is more than ten times smaller than China - and isn't at the hotbed of different coronaviruses in SE Asia.

Dear reader, if you think Peter Klevius has a problem with self-assertion you're very wrong. Apart from it being connected to Peter Klevius criticism of citation cartels (see Demand for Resources, 1992:40-44) Peter Klevius main problem is your self-assertion.

Demand for Resources

Is this MP a clown?

Sinophobic BBC working hard for a Coup d'état together with Saudi loving and China hating MPs against PM Boris Johnson.

Peter Klevius wonders why Sinophobic state media BBC (with Tom Tugendhat etc.) goes against the state (PM, MI6 etc.) in being so extremely worried about unfounded claims about China while having no problem with the threats posed by the worst of the worst, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's influence over UK - and BBC?!

20200417: BBC's Sinophobic muslim Razia Iqbal together with Tom Tugendhat arrange a pathetic propaganda theatre of BBC's 22:00 news hour for the most senseless and even childish smearing of China. And how can this clown (just listen to his laughter etc.!) be a leader of UK's foreign affairs committee?! Moreover, Razia Iqbal even uses Trump as an expert! Desperate...!

20200416: State media BBC's Sinophobic Uganda rooted muslim Razia Iqbal lies about Chinese "racism" against Ugandans without telling that it was a local matter that was caused by some Africans linked to a cluster of cases in the Nigerian community in Guangzhou at a time when China had already curbed Covid-19. At least eight people diagnosed with the illness had spent time in the city's Yuexiu district, known as "Little Africa". Five were Nigerian nationals who faced widespread anger - not for being Africans but because of reports that they had broken a mandatory quarantine and been to eight restaurants and other public places instead of staying home. As a result, nearly 2,000 people they came into contact with had to be tested for Covid-19 or undergo quarantine. Guangzhou had confirmed 114 imported coronavirus cases – 16 of which were Africans. The rest were returning Chinese nationals.

20200407a.m.: UK's best PM, Boris Johnson, is much shorter (same as Einstein and Klevius dad) than Trump - but also much more intelligent. It's OK to say so when Trump is white - and loves to play on height, right?
20200412: The reason the Chinese government wanted extra control of DNA results was the previous failed report (see below) which wrongly indicated SARS. However, British media (BBC etc.) blatantly lie about it and first accused Shi Zhengli's lab for spreading infected bats, while some weeks later making her a hero and accusing the government. And no, it didn't spread from bats - but possibly from civet cats. Suspected animals are now forbidden from the market.

UK/Matt Hancock (20200402): "We will work (against Covid19) with our friends and allies." Peter Klevius: That excludes the best, i.e. China, which you, on order from US, have declared an "unfriendly enemy"!

SINOPHOBIA RACISM. US tries to pull you away from Chinese high tech superiority so US can keep feeding you with its outdated tech and influence - just as it used to do with cars and wars. Your pick: US militarism with Saudi led islamofascism - or highspeed Chinatech towards Chinese democracy and global wealth. China is the very opposite to Cuba - and already, in practise, almost identical to Western governments. Excluding China only prolongs the democratic process - and even speeds up China's high tech inside its 1.4 billion market.

Peter Klevius fact check: "COVID-19 has a natural origin and there is no evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered" (Nature). China swiftly sequenced and shared the genome worldwide. China's remarkable response on all stages was praised by WHO (but not BBC) and is in line with its superior tech advances (Mao's China would never have made it). There isn't a trace of an alleged (by BBC etc. fakes) Chinese Covid19 reporting "delay" that wouldn't have been bigger in the West. And the reason is that
for China good reputation is all that matters - now when it has already won the tech competition. China's defense against West's smear campaign is called "propaganda" - in the West. Dear US, it's time to behave! You lost the tech war to little Japan long ago. Now you've lost it against big China. Get over it. So Peter Klevius advises: Do as Wall Street, shake hands instead of producing unfounded Sinophobic smear propaganda!
Covid19 timeline
17 November 2019: A retrospectively confirmed case.
1 December 2019: The first known patient started experiencing symptoms but had not been to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. No epidemiological link could be found between this case and later cases.
8–18 December 2019: Seven cases later diagnosed as COVID19 were documented; only two of them were linked with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
18-29 December 2019: Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) that will eventually be used for viral genome sequencing is collected from patients.
25 December 2019: Wuhan Fifth Hospital gastroenterology director Lu Xiaohong reported suspected infection by hospital staff.
26 December 2019: Zhang Jixian identified a CT scan that showed a different pattern from other viral pneumonia.
27 December 2019: She reported to Jianghan district CCDC with four cases. During the following two days, the hospital received three similar cases, who all came from Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The hospital reported to the provincial and city CDC directly which initiated a field investigation with a retrospective search for pneumonia patients potentially linked to the market. They found additional such patients and on 30 December, health authorities from Hubei Province reported this cluster to CCDC who immediately sent experts to Wuhan to support the investigation. Samples from these patients were obtained for laboratory analyses.
30 December 2019: Wuhan Municipal Health Committee informed WHO, Weibo etc. about an "urgent notice on the treatment of pneumonia of unknown cause". There had been "a successive series of patients with unexplained pneumonia recently." However, a DNA report inaccurately indicated SARS on one patient. Late same day (17:43) ophthalmologist Li Wenliang WeChatted "There were 7 confirmed cases of SARS at Huanan Seafood Market." He included a patient's CT scan. At 18:42, he admitted that it wasn't proven SARS.
31 December 2019: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were alerted by China of an unexplained "cluster of 27 cases of pneumonia” in Wuhan.

US worst nightmare is a democratic China - which wouldn't change China but make it even more like one-party "democracies" in the West - because that would mean losing US only argument. US deliberately seeks Sinophobic confrontational aggression against China - which hampers the development and peace of the world.

US island puppets against China and EU. US, who used to treat Japan as it now treats China, is now parasitizing on former enemy Japan in an (in vane) effort to keep China high tech down, and on the much tinier UK ally to trouble EU.

Something sinister is behind when Sinophobic far right extremist politicians so desperately risk future development in UK with false accusations of "possible risks in the future", skewed presentations, and unfounded demonization of Chinese high tech. And while Klevius is posting this, all in his machine is spied on and sent to US. And why is BBC constantly only hosting Sinophobic guests who also happen to be supporters of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and happy to allow US spying on you via US companies? The only risk Huawei poses is that the Chinese state gets fed up and makes it illegal to sell Chinese top tech to UK. China is the future of high tech, so stepping off the bus means retardation. Btw, the two main accusations against China could easily be made against US/UK as well. China wants to trade and therefore doesn't want to risk reputation. US doesn't bother about its reputation. And when it comes to clean up muslim "communities" from islamofascist extremists there's really no other difference than in numbers. Moreover, NATO/Turkey uses extremist Uyghurs against civilians in e.g. Idlib - and hypocritically accuse China when these jihadi return.

Klevius to women: NATO makes a deal with the Taliban to continue sharia oppression of women, and NATO+IS=true because NATO is the main culprit behind the suffering in Idlib. Without the support from NATO the worst muslim terrorist group would never have survived. Like IS, NATO ally Hayat Tahrir al-Sham wants to create an islamic state. Turkey/NATO backs SNA well knowing that it's together with HTS. I.e. a NATO member state invades its neighbor, sides with terrorists and gets full support from NATO when its soldiers get killed while helping the terrorists. And what about Yemen?! It's truly pathetic that muslims seem more worried about islamofascism than the West!

Peter Klevius to climatists: Sinophobia is a threat to the environment, because China has the slowest population growth and is the the least per capita polluter of main economies (see table below) and the main producer of alternative and conventional super high tech! Moreover, China lacks the same proportion of natural resources as e.g. Sweden, Norway etc. (e.g. hydropower) but instead has to deal with the dust smog blowing from the Gobi desert and the extreme cold from the north. And China bears the manufacturing pollution for products other countries then consume and profit on.

NATO (Turkey supported by US/UK) is siding with the worst muslim terrorist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (some 10,000 IS jihadi) against the people of Idlib while BBC News spreads misinfo propaganda against Syria, Russia and Iran - and nothing about the Saudi dictator family.

BBC (20200217) wants to stop Chinese tech because China opposes islamofascist Uyghurs. Klevius suggests the world should stop dealing with US/UK because of involvement in war crimes and genoscides against Shia muslims.

Why is Wikipedia allowed to spread polemical, tendentious and deliberately misleading info about islam? And not a word about islam's original supremacist enslavement, booty and humiliation ideology?! This misinfo is the most harmful of all!

From a true (negative) Human Rights, as well as from a historical perspective, original islam may rather be seen as original fascism. The oldest Koranic texts and the historically verified beginning of islam both emphasize supremacism as the main tenet (blamed/excused on "Allah"). Islam conserves racism, sexism and supremacism as pointed out by true muslims (aka "fundamentalists") reinforced through sharia (e.g. by Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia which is heavily criticized both by Klevius and the Council of Europe etc.). Islamic (and therefore muslim) supremacism is easily distinguished as it doesn't approve of Human Rights equality.

And why does Wikipedia deliberately conflate the history of islam with the fairy tales of believers in islam?!

Sinophobia is racism but "islamophobia" is criticism of an ideology. "Islamophobia" shouters are directly responsible for islamic hate crimes based on Koranic texts and hitting children of "infidels".

The Saudi-US-UK axis of evil

Chinese eyes less intrusive than Five Eyes (US and its puppets) - because China prioritizes trade and reputation while US prioritizes global spying, meddling and military control. The Saudi loving US puppets Duncan Smith, Davis, Paterson, Green, Ellwood and Seely etc. produce baseless "security" arguments for Sinophobic MPs.

U.S. flu this season Feb. 2020: 19 million illnesses, 180,000 hospitalizations, and over 10,000 deaths (China has a third less common flu than US). 2019-nCoV, 6 Feb. 2020 (estim. total death rate 0.1-0.2%, i.e. same as common flu): 28,018 cases (not illnesses) and 563 deaths. Did the eye doctors SARS rant on social media delay response in China? It wasn't SARS but much closer to common flu - but without vaccine. Instead of assisting, US/UK/BBC did the utmost to smear China with it!

Klevius warning to Finland (and the rest of the world): Don't be useful idiots in US' export of militarism! It will create tension and pull fire on you in a conflict. Four balancing power blocs is safer than one or two. Moreover, China will become the world's first true democracy thanks to AI. Don't let Sinophobia blind you. US is going down unless it starts cooperating instead of trying to rule the world. Non 5G iPhone sells well - in US - where there's no true 5G.

BBC's bigoted and hypocritical Pakistan rooted, Saudi raised and Cambridge schooled "muslim" (no veil, no Ramadan fasting, but yes to alcohol etc.) presenter Mishal Husain, like many Saudi/OIC supporters, represents the "security risk" between islam's "core" (OIC sharia) and "periphery" (e.g. "Euro-islam", "cultural islam" etc.).

Peter Klevius suggests cooperation instead of unfounded incl. religious) hate!

Klevius is ashamed over hateful, racist Western Sinophobia - and support of hateful sharia jihad. BBC's sharia supporting (?) muslim Mishal Husain now eagerly sides with Sinophobic extreme right wing politicians who support Saudi islamofascism but demonize China and Chinese (except if critcical of China). Sinophobes would treat China exactly the same if it copied US "democracy".

BBC today (20200129) forgot to tell about China already having isolated the virus for vaccine (and helped Australians to do so).
However, BBC repeatedly lied that the death rate is 20%. Common flu and the new corona virus deaths (~2%) are extremely rare outside very vulnerable groups - who don't travel much.

BBC, who otherwise don't hesitate to spit on Trump, has no problem using his advisor when it comes to racist Sinophobia against Huawei. US is blackmailing UK so to hinder China's tech success and the "security issue" is actually US itself.

Niklas Arnberg, Swedish professor in virology: "Considerably higher mortality than ordinary flu." BBC: "Death toll rises as disease spreads from China."
Peter Klevius: Both are faking! Arnberg used overall death numbers although most (all?!) of these deaths have been people who could have died from ordinary flu as well. And do you really think BBC would ever have written similarly about the deadly camel flu from Saudi Arabia?!

Why is BBC only talking about Jewish victims - and why is BBC silent about the fact that most "anti-semites" (i.e. anti-Jews) are muslims? Holocaust: 6 million Jews and 11 million "others" were murdered by the German government for various discriminatory practices due to their ethnicity, Atheism, or LGBT+.
Hitler: "All character training must be derived from faith." Himmler: ""We believe in a God Almighty who stands above us; he has created the earth, the Fatherland, and he has sent us the Führer. Any human being who does not believe in God should be considered arrogant, megalomaniacal, and stupid." Klevius (the Atheist "other"): That's a description of me by most Americans and muslims. Btw, why are muslim sex predators (compare Koran and sex slaves) from Pakistan called "Asians"?! And why have they been protected while Klevius has been muffled?!

Islam trumps LGBT rights in English schools - and hateful sexist and racist muslim supremacism defending BBC is silent as usual (e.g. about Parkfield Community School 2020).

Klevius: Do you really support US/UK/BBC's disgusting racist Sinophobia madness - and their support and use of anti-Human Rights muslim islamism?! Wikipedia: In the Xinjiang riots Turkic speaking Uyghur muslims shouted/posted "kill the Han (Chinese) and Hui (Chinese speaking muslims)"!

Why is BBC so silent about Iran Air Flight 655 that was recklessly shot down by US over Iran territory killing 290 incl. 66 children?! Is it the new US puppet empire agenda? Did US aggression also cause the latest plane crash?

When BBC announces "the threats of 2020" the murders, terrorism and war crimes committing Saudi dictator family isn't included. As isn't US/UK militaristic meddling and proxy wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq etc. However, China's peaceful trade and high tech manufacturing is!?

Saudi based and steered Human Rights violator OIC is the main legal guidance for the world's sharia muslims. BBC eagerly supports it by neglecting to criticize it while spitting on those who do. OIC's Cairo Declaration on "Human Rights" in Islam (CDHRI) is against freedom of religion - but abuses real Human Rights for the promotion of anti-Human Rights sharia islam. The CDHRI concludes in Articles 24 and 25 that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic sharia, which is the declaration's sole source. OIC hence keeps the gate open for continued islamofascism in the "muslim world" - and as a convenient tool for meddling in "hostile states".

Peter Klevius fact/fake check: Why does Google (and BBC) lie and fake straight up your face about China?! When searching for 'world's biggest per capita polluters' China comes up with extra big letters despite being one of the least polluting of major economies (47th on a reliable polluters list). Moreover, China is not only the world leader for alternative technologies, but its pollution number also includes the biggest production of products exported and consumed all over the world outside China. Source: EDGAR and incl. all human activities leading to climate relevant emissions, except biomass/biofuel combustion (short-cycle carbon).

Peter Klevius Christmas greeting to BBC and Tesco: Ever thought about the possibility that muslim islamists don't like making Christmas cards but are encouraged by US/UK/BBC etc. to smear China. "We are foreign prisoners (muslims?) in Shanghai Qingpu prison China. Forced to work against our will (islamic Christophobia?). Please help us and notify human rights (ultimate bigotry if sharia muslims ask for HR) organisation (Saudi based and steered OIC?!)."

US/UK (NATO) don't accept muslims like Uighur islamists (other than as proxy soldiers) - but demand China to accept them. NATO's Sinophobia is a threat to world peace, environment and prosperity. NATO is all about US monopolizing space for its own militarism and to block China's success? In 1990s Russia was proposed as a member of NATO but is now demonized by US/UK (and BBC) as the "main enemy" together with "the challenge from China" (sic). But NATO members are guilty of offensive wars, occupations, annexations, use of chemical weapons, use of islamist terrorists, foreign interventions, extrajudicial murderings in other countries - and use of similar muslim "re-education" camps as China (why not just criminalize original evil islam?!). NATO (US) threatens the free flow of tech and wealth, and provokes hate and defensive attitudes among Chinese - hence forcing China (world leader in tech) using its financial muscles more for defense (China can't be starved like USSR in 1980s) than environment. Btw, Chinese per capita GDP is 1/3 of US, and total GDP much bigger than US - and faster growing. A fraction of the effort given to demonize "islamophobic" islam criticim, would do wonders to reduce Sinophobic racism against Chinese. And stop using the "Communist threat". China is now a capitalist country similar to Western powers - except technologically much better (and the West copies everything China does in surveillance). Do you really think much would change if China would be fully democratic - except chaos caused by NATO? NATO (US/UK) would be equally Sinophobic. In fact, what is called "democracy" in the West functions quite similarly as the leadership in China. Media propaganda, lying politicians and empty promises combined with silencing the real issues (compare BBC's fake "news") - and therefore a truly democratic vote. Moreover, the only reason capitalist China has a non-democratic leadership for the moment is precisely its justified fear for leaving it vulnerable for what happened in the past when UK and US meddled and attacked with great suffering for the Chinese people. NATO should turn against the real evil, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.

England voted (for the second time) against Merkel’s islam import from Turkey.

Can islam be rehabilitated from its evil origin and deeds - and can unrehabilitated islam be allowed in public and private spheres?

Why is Saudi based and steered OIC's Islamic State of Gambia accusing Aung San Suu Kyi for the consequences of islamofascism OIC's sharia protects - and why isn't the murderous islamofascist war criminal and genocide committing Saudi dictator "prince" accused of anything? And why is BBC's leading muslim extremist propaganda presenter Mishal Husain allowed to "present" an absolutely one-sided pro islamist picture for BBC's compulsory fee paying listeners?

"British" nationalist hypocrisy: Get back control - and meddle, influence, intervene, spy and control all over the world.

More than half of muslims in UK are "islamophobes" (against sharia) - just like Peter Klevius, Council of Europe etc. - but opposite to BBC and many UK politicians (source: A survey of UK’s muslim communities by Martyn Frampton, David Goodhart and Khalid Mahmood MP).

BBC awards a white man who plays an odd sport few are interested in the title of "sports personality of the year 2019". Why?! Because cricket is a "british" colonial sports and also fits BBC's special interest in "asians" - but couldn't find a "british asian" good enough.

"British" nationalist hypocrisy: Get back control - and meddle, influence, intervene, spy and control all over the world.

More than half of muslims in UK are "islamophobes" (against sharia) - just like Peter Klevius, Council of Europe etc. - but opposite to BBC and many UK politicians (source: A survey of UK’s muslim communities by Martyn Frampton, David Goodhart and Khalid Mahmood MP).

BBC awards a white man who plays an odd sport few are interested in the title of "sports personality of the year 2019". Why?! Because cricket is a "british" colonial sports and also fits BBC's special interest in "asians" - but couldn't find a "british asian" good enough.
Is BBC killing UK democracy and paving the way for islamofascism?
BBC undermines your most basic Human Rights. BBC's "islamophobia" propaganda machine (incl. Sayeeda Warsi) boosts OIC islam while neglecting Council of Europe's sharp ("islamophobic") criticism of OIC's world sharia (Cairo declaration). SO HOW COME THAT BBC IS ALLOWED TO MEDDLE IN THE VOTING PROCESS BY ATTACKING AND SMEARING THOSE CANDIDATES WHO SHARE THE VIEW OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE - not to mention the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948?!

How Merkel paved the way for Brexit (Erdogan deal) and aided jihad in EU. NATO (US) with former fascist state Germany now sides with islamofascism - especially Erdogan's Ottoman aspirations - and supports Uyghur jihadism in hope of placing NATO (i.e. US) nukes between Russia and China. Peter Klevius wonders whether this ill-directed jihad propaganda will promote peace and safety?
The world bully U.S. thinks it owns and rules the world after having colonized it via dollar manipulation, infiltration, spying, meddling, sanctions and the unscrupulous use of militants and militarism.
Thanks to the global dollar scam, Americans have been freeloaders on the rest of the world, the biggest per capita polluters and the U.S. by far the biggest threat to world peace via weapons built with money it stole from the world. Said by Peter Klevius who has been an anti-socialist all his life. Btw. the world's industrial revolution didn's start in England but in Sweden already in the late 17th century by inventor Christopher Polhem and capitalist Gabriel Stierncrona. Without Polhem's automation to get the rich Swedish iron ore from the mains, England had no chance to start real industrial production.

A nun's gear doesn't sign other women as "whores". However, what about a woman in an islamic "chastity" gear?

K.S. Lal (a giant among historians): Mahmud of Ghazni had marched into Hindustan again and again to wage jihad and spread the Muhammadan religion, to lay hold of its wealth, to destroy its temples, to enslave its people, sell them abroad and thereby earn profit, and to add to muslim numbers by converting the captives.

Is BBC 100% steered by muslims? Not only can you ever hear anything critical about islam and muslims - but all main channels are also occupied by sharia (OIC) supporting (i.e. against basic Human Rights equality) muslims. Nazir Afzal ('Moral maze', news, culture etc.), Mishal Husain (news, culture etc.), Samira Ahmed (news, culture etc.), Razia Iqbal (news, culture etc.). And they all keep cheating the public about it and instead pointing finger to "dumb and hateful xenophobes". Not a word about e.g. Council of Europe's harsh critcism (see below) of muslims biggest sharia organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC. Foreigners isn't the peoblem - sharia islam is!

BBC's muslims and their PC supporters also meddle in UK election by demonizing "islamophobia", i.e. trying to stop critcs of islamofascism.

Muslim child/youth fascism induced by an islam interpretation from family and strengthened by PC media, politicians etc.

BBC meddling and Saudi islamofascism

Peter Klevius: Everyone - incl. every muslim who respects Human Rights - ought to make sure to vote for an "islamophobe"! BBC and Sayeeda Warsi will make their utmost to stop critics of islamofascism in the election. Don't be robbed of your democratic right. And of course you know that the only real problem with migration is islamofascism.

BBC's "man in Hong Kong" asked street terror leader Joshua Wong if they could possibly escalate violence. And they could. One day later they put a Chinese on fire in a murder attempt.

Peter Klevius: The Saudi Aramco sale is the biggest ripoff in the world. If there's any future in oil and you don't care about environment, then why buy what's at its peak when Venezuela's PDVSA is bigger and as low it can get?!

Are you an "islamophobe" if you don't like islamist Human Rights violations? Islam has (via OIC's sharia declaration) abandoned the most basic anti-fascist Human Rights from 1948. Islam is hence the only religion in doing so - not even the Catholics have needed to replace Human Rights with "Catholic human rights".

The seed for world fascism is dormant in Saudi based and steered OIC's world sharia - opposed by ECHR and Peter Klevius, but supported by Sayeeda Warsi.

While US/UK aim for militarism and war, China aims for health and wealth.

While US/UK aim for militarism and war, China aims for health and wealth.
Breakit instead of Brexit because what's the point of leaving one EU while still staying in an other called UK? England voted leave.

However, unfortunately BBC demonizes China on behalf of UK's relying on militarist meddling, weapons sales and islamofascist sharia finance. So you see the solution: Cut off sharia etc. islamofascist ties and open up for prospering with China - not the over-selfish game of spying and dying of US.

BBC boosts stupid nationalist "Britishness" with peculiar "sports" like cricket and rugby because the world has already "colonized" football and the English language is a global property.

Nigel Farage is like BBC against "islamophobia" and pro-Saudi - but Boris Johnson doesn't like letter boxes and was criticized by Theresa May for being critical against the Saudis while serving as her foreign minister.

China (laws against sharia islamofascism) and EU (Human Rights against sharia islamofascism) are now the only ones protecting basic (negative*) Human Rights.
* Religious people and socialists don't like negative Human Rights simply because they prefer collectives ("communities") rather than individuals. That's why the web is full of misinfo about these rights. Read Peter Klevius definition instead if you want a deep view - or listen to Lauren Chen starting from 7:11 if you want it light
The Saudi "custodian of islam" has some 1.5 billion "citizens" in the muslim world Ummah nation - and demands the world to bow them no matter what (as long they aren't Shia or so, of course). China, on the other hand, keeps its citizens and laws within its own borders. IS islam IS fascism and islam (even the archbishop agrees). So why is sharia fascism not separated from an "islam" that submits to basic Human Rights? As it stands now Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia (the 1990 Cairo declaration) still stands as the basic Human Rights violation via sharia muslims all over the world. And whereas China actively tries to erase sharia islamofascism, EU keeps promoting import of it while judicially telling us it's not right, yet doing nothing to stop it.
Unlike the West, China hasn't aggressively meddled militaristically in other countries around the world, but rather being the world's foremost spreader of new technology and wealth. And whereas the West has eagerly supported Mohammed's totalitarian aims, China has, in practise, implemented in law most of the Human Rights advices that The Council of Europe has directed against OIC. Against this background West's Saudi backing and China smearing is deeply bigoted and hypocritical.

John le Carré: I'm depressed and ashamed of British nationalism. Nationalism needs enemies but today we really have no identifiable enemies except among ourselves.

North Atlantic (sic) Treaty Organization invades a country in Mideast and attacks (with chemical weapons) a people without a country.

UK's Brexit business model: Sharia finance, weapons sale and militaristic meddling?UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (sic) and Global Neo-Imperialist and Militarist Meddling, Jeremy Hunt, 15 Oct. 2019: It's wrong to accuse Donald Trump - it's Americans isolationism because American taxpayers don't want to pay between 1/2 and 2/3 of the defense of Europe. And Turkey is very skilled at finding wedges and gaps between allies. UK should be EU's bridge to US.
Peter Klevius: No, EU should take care of its own defense - against whom? The Saudi dictator family who is the world's no 1 spender on weapons and islamic terror incitement and who hates EU's anti-sharia legislation? And UK taxpayers should not have to pay more for dangerous militarism. Militaristic meddling is a bad and dangerous business idea.

Read K.S. Lal (free online) on islam's evil spread!

A Google (i.e. U.S. web monopoly) search (20191006) reports 'islamists Hong Kong' "missing". Really! No islamists in Hong Kong? Peter Klevius also wonders if EU citizens in UK are UKongers and can peacefully demand the same rights as Joshua Wong violently demands (and eagerly broadcasted by BBC) for Hong Kongers?

Peter Klevius congratulates Savid Javid for abandoning the islamofascist "islamophobia" smear. BBC’s bigoted hypocrite Mishal Husain and others ought to follow!

BBC's Mark Mardell couldn't get a visa to China because of his extreme and hateful Sinophobia - but that didn't stop him/BBC from producing a fake anti-China program series while pretending to be there. Is Sinophobia really better than cooperation?

Sinophobe Tom Tugendhat, chair of UK's Foreign Affairs Committee (who has studied islam and Arabic in Mideast) suggests that English speaking universities should consider banning Chinese students because "they might be used as leverage like Huawei". Peter Klevius wonders if one could be any more racist than this, and if he doesn't see any islamofascist sharia supremacist "leverage" at all? Btw, there are more than 50,000 Chinese muslims in Hong Kong. Peter Klevius wonders how many of them are "radical" ones and participate in BBC's lengthy anti-China propaganda "news" - while the world doesn't suffer from Chinese but from muslim violence and Human Rights violations?

US/UK destroyed the lives of millions of Chinese during some hundred years of evil militaristic meddling.'BBC is now busy smearing China all the time while supporting Saudi islamofascism and violent Hong Kong demonstrators - but neglecting the mass of peaceful pro-China demonstrators. BBC also "worries" about Chinese "surveillance state" while the truth is China's technological superiority. US is much more insidious in its surveillance policies but lacks the techno - can't even produce a working 5G so far. US/UK follow exactly China but utilize the meantime to smear it. And who is really behind the Hong Kong riots? Someone who can't take China's success? But the Syria tactics won't work. US (and its UK puppet) wants to be able to meddle militarily near China - therefore its interest in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, Tibet, Myanmar, Uyghur extremist muslims etc.

As Greta Thunberg is allegedly reported to the Swedish social authorities, Peter Klevius suggests that her parents read his thesis Pathological Symbiosis in LVU, Relevance, and Sex Segregated Emergence. Keeping in mind that Peter Klevius daughter was only 15 when she entered university and at 16 made her graduate paper about women in ancient times, it shouldn't be considered too sensitive for Greta either. Also read the attached email correspondence which clearly shows how democracy is manipulated. And why not consider Angels of Antichrist, the Social State vs the People (P. Klevius 1996). And last but not least, Peter Klevius 1981/1992 Demand for Resources (original titel Resursbegär).
Peter Klevius and the Council of Europe share exactly the same "islamophobia".
Council of Europe. Resolution 2253 (2019), Sharia, Saudi based and steered OIC's Cairo Declaration and the European Convention on Human Rights: Human Rights protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to manifest one’s religion, however, is a qualified right whose exercise, under Article 17 of the Convention, may not aim at the destruction of other Convention rights or freedoms.

People in UK-land (especially women) will loose their Human Rights after Brexit - while sharia prevails in UK, and UK citizens in EU are protected by the European Court of Human Rights.

Brexit was meant to protect UK from muslim invasion via Turkey's proposed visa free deal with Merkel. Even the possibility of temporary membership in ECHR (in case of a deal) isn't enough - especially considering UK will be out of reach of the European Court of Justice.

US loosing the tech war - and starting a real one?

US loosing the tech war - and starting a real one?

Do Americans and Pompeo share the Saudi hate against Shia muslims?

A muslim wants to criminalize Peter Klevius islamophobia. Really!

A muslim wants to criminalize Peter Klevius islamophobia. Really!
West's indulgence of islamofascism (sharia) has made its boasting against China about "democratic values" empty. The risk of you being stabbed, raped etc. by a hateful jihadi is created by your political leaders, BBC etc. - who also have arranged so it's not even called a hate crime.

Peter Klevius stands for these "stops" and due huge implications - all shame on him if you can prove him wrong (click links if you need to educate yourself before saying something stupid): Stop using the misleading 'gender' instead of sex (sociology)! Stop islam's abuse of Human Rights (jurisprudence)! Stop saying humans came "out of Africa" (anthropology)! Stop talking about "consciousness" when you don't know what you're talking about (philosophy/ai).

Islam is the problem - China is the solution.

If China today became a full democracy (and even accepting full Human Rights*) - nothing would change, because it's not the rulers but the high tech industry in China that outperforms the West. And unlike islam, China doesn't have tenets against Human Rights. However, islam is tied to its supremacist and sexist sharia tenets (OIC) which deny women full Human Rights - just the opposite to what is said in the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948. If islam would accept full Human Rights it would not be islam anymore. China's economic expansion has been a non-aggressive big contributor to wealth around the world, but when China reached out its Belt and Road hand, then the West bit it and supported extremist muslim terrorists. Islam induced hate crimes and terror are based on a shared evil ideology (a global muslim collective rather than as nationals, which inspire and hail each other) - but because most are committed by lonely or gang muslims, and because police and media are told muslim "ethnicity" ought not to be revealed, then the public are kept unaware of most muslim hate crimes. How come that evilness is protected? The answer is in the question. To hide its original evilness. And how come that BBC and UK politicians dare to support islamofascism in Kashmir? Freedom from sharia for women in Kashmir!

* UK PM Theresa May opposed Human Rights.

Peter Klevius: BBC supports the islamofascist Saudi dictator family's strategic use of supremacist islam which has spred muslim hate all over the world's streets, institutions etc. (and usually not correctly, if at all, reported by BBC which instead doesn't hesitate to give long coverage of "alternative news" that better suits its propaganda) - while muslim terrorist organizations keep it within muslim territories. So if true Salafists became the "gurdians of islam's holy places" then that would mean less muslim terror elsewhere. And less to cover up for BBC. How big a contributor to the suffering of islamic supremacist hate crimes has BBC's fake (and lack of) info been? Will we in the future see BBC in an international court accused of crimes against humanity? As it stands now the spill over effect of BBC's cynical support of proxy evil is stained in blood and rape etc. over innocent people. And if true Salafists took over in muslim countries, they would quickly become non-muslim countries. A better option than today's prolonged suffering caused by the hopeless effort to "adapt" a medieval slavery ideology to a modern world based on everyone's Human Rights equality. And if it's so important to keep islam in name only - then islam would loose all of its racist and sexist "we and the other" appeal anyway.

Why is BBC aiding islamofascism?

Why is BBC aiding islamofascism?

Statues of football player Nilla Fischer and Caroline Seger vandalized in Sweden

Statues of football player Nilla Fischer and Caroline Seger vandalized in Sweden

Why didn't islam go to the Moon?!

Why didn't islam go to the Moon?!

Religion pollutes

Religion pollutes

Islam (represented in UN by Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia called “islamic human rights”) is against Human Rights!

Sweden’s Supreme Court has found a man guilty of rape for having sex without explicit consent from a"teenage woman" who had been passive and gave no clear expression that she wanted to participate in the sexual acts. Lack of a partner’s spoken agreement or any other clear approval can hence be considered rape. However, islamic sharia gives a muslim man the "right" to have sex with wives and and concubines his "right hand possesses" (e.g. "infidel" girls/women). The neo-islamist rational (original openly supremacist islam didn't need one) is that "it satisfies the sexual desire of the female". Peter Klevius wonders if Swedish Courts will accept this reasoning - perhaps only for muslims?!

Peter Klevius also wonders whether BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting, Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim, Mishal Husain, approves of sharia?

UK introduced face recognition after for many years accusing Chinese for having it. Peter Klevius wonders how this fits UK's face covered muslims and others who utilize it?

What do BBC and Jeremy Hunt have in common? Both support the islamofascist murderer and war criminal Mohammad bin Salman.

Peter Klevius: Girls' emancipation needs more football and less cricket, netball etc.

BBC's cricket propaganda is a slap in the face of young girls who need equally much moving around and spatial skills as young boys. However, there's a huge sex segregation in females motivation and access to football - not only the world's by far most popular physical sport, but also the only one that doesn't use tools or hands to handle the ball, and which makes all participants moving most of the time even without the ball. Moreover, the very nature of the sport forces participants to a never ending series of spatial and strategic challenges - with or without the ball and even while playing alone. So why is BBC so hostile to the Queen of sports (the "beautiful game") that is perfect for the physical and spatial development of girls - and in the face of the football loving majority who has to pay compulsory fees (and paying extra for football channels) to this faking regime propaganda media that uses stiff and lifeless colonial cricket for neo-colonial purpose?! England banned football for girls/women already 1921 and suggested cricket, land hockey and netball instead - almost like today except it's not called a ban. And what about the laughable notion of a "world cup" in cricket?! When is the "world cup" in caber tossing between Gotland and Scotland?

The murderous war criminal, Saudi muslim "custodian of islam" (and OIC) "prince" MBS is OK but Human Rights defender Peter Klevius isn't. Why?! Because the former isn't an "islamophobe", dude!
Stop US global bullying! What moral right does US have trying to dominate Earth and space? "God"?! Or the Saudi murderer and mass murderer "prince"?! Hasn't US sucked out enough already from the rest of the world? A global dollar manipulation favoring US and paid by the rest. A US marked global license and patent imperialism - and Android. Is Internet next?

BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not ramadan fasting muslim, Mishal Husain (Pakistan rooted and brought up in Saudi Arabia), sounds desperate when trying to smear Johnson. Is it because Boris 2016 was critical against the Saudis while foreign minister and 2018 critical of muslim women packed in burqas etc.?
BBC thinks the militaristic Saudiphil Jeremy Hunt "is a safer option" as UK PM. What about you?

BBC News 8:00 AM 23 June 2019: Johnson financially unfit because he spilled wine on a couch.

BBC News 8:00 AM 23 June 2019: Johnson financially unfit because he spilled wine on a couch.
Is the Saudi "custodian of islam" a muslim - and is the very question "islamophobic", "muslimophobic" or "Saudiphobic"?

Blinked by BBC's fake "news" which instead boost militaristic confrontation and the smearing of China: The Saudi war criminal "custodian of islam" who murdered Khashoggi is now the world's new Hitler. However, unlike Hitler's Germanic language imperialism, bin Salman's Arabic language imperialism is added by a totalitarian imperialism due to the fact that he is a muslim and as such represents the totality of islam (inc. the Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization O.I.C.'s sharia declaration against Human Rights). Peter Klevius has for long pointed out that we need to distinguish between Human Rights obeying "muslims" and "extremist" muslims, but for some reason they are all bundled as 'muslims'.

Sinophobia disguised as "security" while murderous Saudi war criminal dictator is "an ally"!?

Sinophobia disguised as "security" while murderous Saudi war criminal dictator is "an ally"!?

Chinese high tech is met with Sinophobia, bans (tariffs) and militarism by US/UK/EU.

China pollutes less than US/UK/EU while producing more high tech.

China pollutes less than US/UK/EU while producing more high tech.

Existence-centrism (Peter Klevius 1986)

When muslim terrorists mass murder more than 100 in Mali, BBC gives it less time (2 min.) than an item on animal cruelty, Russian journalist arrest etc. in a 45 min "news" program!

Read this: The "out of Africa" hoax is worse than the Piltdown hoax - and much bigger and more worrisome. When will “out of Africaphobia” be criminalized?
Nothing in Primate/Haplorhini evolution came out of Africa - not even Africa (it was disconnected due to tectonics).

A “definition” of “islamophobia” ought to be balanced with a definition of muslim Human Rightsphobia.

"Diversity" without basic (negative) Human Rights is like having a car without steering - dangerous.

In its senseless and continuous "islamophobia" ranting BBC says to be 'muslim' is the same as to be 'English'. Klevius thinks not. A 'muslim' is one who wittingly or unwittingly adheres to what historical records show being the most evil enslaving ideology ever around (from a Human Rights perspective). And Klevius doesn't count as real muslims those who call themselves "cultural muslims" for the purpose of benefiting from a certain "ethnicity", or those who against their will are trapped in muslimhood because of the evil apostasy tenet in islam. And islamic "modesty" attires is a protected way of calling other women "whores".

Klevius suggests the UK baby should be named Muhammad. After all, according to BBC, the Queen is related to him and all politicians love islam. And several hadiths describe him as white (one even proposing the killing of anyone who says he was black). Only problem being that he then may be described as a white supremacist. Luckily the baby, according to BBC, is “mix-race”.

Klevius to EU voters: If you respect Human Rights - don’t vote for anyone who supports the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who spreads Human Rightsphobia via the Saudi based and steered OIC’s world sharia!

And if you respect your Earthly home – don’t support a hate ideology that encourages over-population and sex apartheid. We don’t need more workers because the most profitable sectors have the least jobs – a trend that AI accelerates.

No true muslim can be fully human.

Why? Because islam's dividing the world in muslims and (not fully human) "infidels" makes it impossible. Only by fully accepting the basic (s.c. 'negative') Universal Human Rights equality - which islam can't accept (see e.g. Saudi based and steered all muslims world Ummah sharia organization OIC) without committing ideological suicide - can we meet every human as basically equal, in the same way as we can give every road-user a basic equality in traffic, i.e. we have traffic sense. So Klevius asks muslims whether they have "traffic sense"? And for all the rest of you - to be 'human' in a global sense can only be achieved by giving every human you meet basic equality - no matter how alien that human might feel to you. Because every human has the right to be "alien" and there can't even be any alternative to this as long as we don't accept brainwashed totalitarianism (see e.g. Klevius 1996 paper Angels of Antichrist). This is the only way to meaningfully talk about 'humankind'. And to alien hunters Klevius says you probably meet them every day already.

So when BBC and other fake media talk about xenophobia against muslims, they actually contribute to spread xenophobia themselves.

A "good muslim" is one who suppresses and distorts original islam so to fit Human Rights. However, some just pretend to do so - and some just continue hating the "infidel".

Ultimate bigotry and hypocrisy – spying and meddling 5 Eyes instead of true 5G?

Saudi hate spreading antennas (Salafi/Wahhabi mosques etc.) or Chinese world leading 5G tech? No one knows the amount of street etc. victims of Saudi hate because when the haters are muslims their attacks are not recorded as hate crimes.

The real threat is the US led Saudi supporting spy organization 5 Eyes, which 1) tries to block superior tech, and 2) uses China as a scapegoat for US/UK privacy breaches. It's not China but US that wants to control you! So "securing 5G from Chinese influence" actually means giving US/UK a technical space for spying/influencing etc. In short, trying to hinder US/UK customers from accessing the best technology while spying on them.

Muslim terrorists get legal aid to stay in UK - EU nationals don't!

BBC collected a UKIP hating mob to shout "islamophobia" against islam criticism.

However, the very same BBC also willfully misleads people about islam so that most people in UK are completely unaware of that Saudi based and steered OIC and its extreme Human Rightsphobia is a world guide for (sharia) muslims. Moreover, BBC's top presenter (Mishal Husain) who seems to be muslim in name only (drinking alcohol, not fasting on Ramadan, no muslim attire, no Haji, no sharia, etc) so to dupe the public about islam.

The 1948 Human Rights declaration was created to protect against fascism. Accepting islam without a clear border against sharia that violates the most basic Human Rights, allows space for islamofascism (i.e. original supremacist islam).

However, the new fascist mob is shouting "islamophobia" because islam can't comply with it (compare Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration against Human Rights). This smear is then "enhanced" by connecting it to murderers, Nazis, right wing extremists etc. Islam's sharia sexism and racist supremacism is the problem - so why is addressing it "bad"?!

BBC is also keen on silencing the only truly free media, i.e. bloggers etc. social media.

"Blasphemy" laws are only needed to defend the undefendable - like that an ideology that has caused most of the suffering on the planet is called "a great/peaceful religion", or that modern humans evolved in a continent that lacked every qualification/evidence for that.
The inquisition tactics and practices included imprisoning anyone who was seen as a threat towards the Catholic Church. They kept a tight security and denied foreign critics from coming inside their regions (compare Saudi Arabia today and how it's defended by UK's "hostile environment" against "islamophobes", i.e. sharia critics).
The predecessors to Chimps and Gorillas, Baboons etc all came from Eurasia - as did the first bipedal apes. And the ultimate source was the "evolutionary lab" in the SE Asian volatile tropical archipelago - possibly slightly assisted by North American asteroid impact, India's landing in Asia and Miocene Mediterranean archipelago.
Truly modern "round skulled" (i.e. all of us) humans got their last honing in big sculled Siberians (compare Denisova cave).

Muslim terrorists get legal aid to stay in UK - EU nationals don't!

The crystal clear connection between the surge in knife, rape etc. attacks and islam - and its custodian, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - is desperately silenced by BBC and politicians. This means they are directly complicit, doesn't it. Klevius suggests boycotting BBC and Saudi bribed politicians. They constitute the worst security threat.

The best explanation to the surge in knife crimes since 2015 is the Islamic State's exhortation to street jihad.
However, the police don't record hate crimes as muslim - other than if directed against muslims. And do consider that IS and the Saudi dictator family both rest on the same Salafi islam that most young true muslims in the West follow. Following Salafism (etc. true muslimhood) involves distinguishing muslims from others, to show that one only belongs to islam and that true muslims ought to be strangers to the "infidels". When Klevius sees a muslim woman in burqa, veil etc. he thinks that's a supremacist and rapist attitude towards other women. And certainly contempt of Human Rights.
UK/BBC's extreme double standard re. the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and China. Klevius: How come that islamofascist tech poor Saudi property-, media-, infra structure- etc. 'vulnerable' investments and supremacist hate spreading mosques, is considered no threat to UK but instead an 'important ally' while China, which doesn't tick any danger boxes, is deliberately painted by BBC propaganda as the worst threat? And how come that China's peaceful Belt and Road spreading of wealth and high tech is considered worse than UK's continuing militaristic and (un)security meddling within an EU that UK decided to leave for the purpose of EU not meddling within UK?!

Modern humans evolved in tropical SE Asia and cold Siberia, according to Klevius

Modern humans evolved in tropical SE Asia and cold Siberia, according to Klevius
Peter Klevius was the first to connect the big Jinniushan woman with small mongoloid Khoisan (1992) and SE-Asia with the new brain setup due to island dwarfing (2004).

"Out of Africa" is no longer terminally ill - it's equally dead as Monty Python's parrot. So why do media and some anthropologists keep babbling when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Not even all tricks in the book (like e.g. the spurious stretching of what counts as "anatomically modern human" - i.e. incl. long skulled species) can save OoA. But the simplest way of understanding human evolution is to place it where all primates originally came from, i.e. SE Asia and its volatile tropical archipelago which could do evolutionary tricks the African continent couldn't. The oldest "Africans" are the mongoloid Khoisan. However, no one can become mongoloid (i.e. cold adapted) in Africa. This means they must originally have come from northern Eurasia - just as their look-alikes, e.g. Shompen and South American natives. Khoisan population is extremely small and, except for Pygmies, most "Africans" entered the continent within the last 10,000 years. Khoisan are mongoloid together with e.g. Shompen in SE Asia, and tribes in South America.

Only SE-Asia offered tropical island/mainland fluctuations for a better packed brain

UK continues even after Brexit to use EU citizens as bargaining chips by placing their rights in an unsafe statutory instrument instead of in the law.

Stop security cooperation with UK whose close connection to the the suspected murderer, war criminal and islamic terror spreading islamofascist Saudi custodian of islam, Mohammad bin Salman, constitutes the by far worst threat against the security of people in EU! Moreover, sharia islam (the only real islam for real muslims) which is a racist and sexist supremacist ideology that violates Human Rights, is supported by UK.

Don't let haters and Human Rightsphobes get away with it by calling themselves 'believers'!

Either religion is (grades of) supremacist hate and sexism and you better become an Atheist (and therefore universal human) - or you keep your "beliefs" for yourself. In traffic you can think what you want about other people, but you can't drive over them!

You muslim should be ashamed of calling Human Rights defenders "islamophobes"

- and take responsibility for your own supremacist sharia, represented by Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization OIC, which violates the most basic Human Rights! And do note the difference between universal impositions and universal freedom! Full respect of the other rests on accepting her/his freedom. This is the only way of being universally human.

Islam is an evil* supremacist and divisive ideology - why isn’t this told by BBC, schools etc.? And why is Klevius called an "islamophobe" when he points this out?!

* weighed against the anti-fascist, anti-supremacist, anti-racist and anti-sexist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 that all civilized people are supposed to build on. Islam doesn't fit these goals, so OIC (the legal world Umma steered from and by the Saudi dictator family) decided to replace them with medieval racist, sexist and supremacist sharia.

Article 24 of the Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration (CDHRI) states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." CDHRI also fails to guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of each and every individual to abandon their religion, as a "fundamental and non-derogable right".

Article 10 of the Declaration states: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to Atheism." Since in Islamic society all reasons for conversion away from Islam are considered to be essentially either compulsion or ignorance, this effectively forbids conversion away from Islam.

CDHRI denies women equality with men by imposing "own rights" and "duties to perform".

This Viking tells you about the danger of religion

A global world is only possible under the guidance of (negative – i.e. individual freedom from racist/sexist impositions) Human Rights - as outlined in the original anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. It excludes any religious or other supremacist tenets or impositions on the individual.

Due to the above and due to the West (politicians and media) having locked itself in with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (the custodians of islam) we now have a deficit of (negative) Human Rights education – but massively more religious propaganda (e.g. Saudi spread “islamophobia” smear) against these rights. Against this background it's utmost hypocrisy to point against wealth spreading China while supporting islamic hate, terror and war crimes spreading hegemonic Saudi dictator family.

US/UK is a security risk - not China. Tell your politician!

US/UK is a security risk - not China. Tell your politician!

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

WARNING about "Five Eyes" and BBC, and their "close ally", the hate, terror and war crimes producing islamofascist "custodian of islam", the Saudi dictator family!
If you prefer peace, democratic non-fake information and positive development - ask your politicians to avoid US/UK's war mongering militarism and the world's biggest state propaganda tool BBC, which constitutes the most serious threat to free information. UK government is pushing for neo-British imperialist militarist meddling and intervention around the world - and making its propaganda tool BBC "the custodian of fact checks", i.e. a wolf among sheep.

UK government wants to force EU to put a border on Ireland - so it can blame EU for something UK-Brexit caused.

BBC isn't much interested in anti-semitism, homophobia etc. but uses them as an excuse for its Saudi/OIC supported "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

Is BBC's Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim(?) presenter Mishal Husain an "islamophobe" against evil* islam, or an apostate supporting toothless** "islam"? She doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, and doesn't veil herself and says she doesn't feel any threats to her way of life (Klevius: thanks to Human Rights - not sharia islam), well knowing how muslim and non-muslim women suffer in muslim sharia countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia without Human Rights. What would she say to a muslim terrorist asking her if she's a muslim? Isn't it about time to stop this bigoted and hypocritical indirect support of islamofascism that this Saudi/OIC initiated "islamophobia" smear camopaign against Human Rights*** is all about?

* Human Rights equality violating sharia islam
** in line with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist U.N.'s 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
*** Socialists have an ideological problem with individual Human Rights, and are therefore vulnerable for islamism (see Klevius 1994).

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

First UK people voted to join and share borders with EU. Then England voted to leave while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay. And now UK politicians want to leave while keeping the Irish EU border open. UK lacks a modern constitution according to which a constitutional issue has to pass at least two majority votes.

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles worldwide.

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

Klevius CV

Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is super 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).

Warning for a muslim robot!

Klevius: Face it, Wikipedia, BBC etc. fake media - Finland was first in the world with full suffrag

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

Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion for girls/women

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

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.

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Today England's parliament vote between islamofascist sharia and Human Rights - without even mentioning sharia. Shame on you England, to even have to vote about it!

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

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

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

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

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

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

So let's face islam with this definition.

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

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

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

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

The earliest truly modern human skull was found in Liujiang/China.

Why hasn't Klevius got the Nobel prize for his theory on consciousness/AI?

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

Theresa May's sharia = >23,000 jihadi - before Brexit. How many after?

Theresa May's sharia = >23,000 jihadi - before Brexit. How many after?

Homo Naledi - and a late "West" hating lawyer relative. A judge for May?

The "Birmingham Koran" hoax - and a sonless "prophet" invented after it!

Prince Charles accuses islam's atrocities in Mideast etc. on "Euro populism like the Nazis"

Prince Charles accuses islam's atrocities in Mideast etc. on "Euro populism like the Nazis"

The muslim Saudi dictator family is the root of most islam induced suffering

While laughter moves out from BBC, islamization moves in

BBC lies and fake news

Lego won't sponsor the defense for Human Rights equality - but islamofascism and sharia is ok

Hillary supports sharia for women, war with Russia and aid to Sunni islamofascists

While Klevius is forcing islam into a Human Rights corner, Obama continues supporting islamofascism

Apostate (?) Obama's bio- and adoptive dads were both muslims

Islam was born out of what Human Rights consider evil

Theresa May is for sharia and EU - but against EU's Human Rights Court which condemns sharia

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Subaru was a decade before Audi with mass produced 4WD cars! And unlike Audi they were reliable and safer to drive.

Saudi based and steered OIC is a muslim extremist organization

The islamofascist Saudi Fuhrer of the Saudi based OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia.

Out of Africa as Koranic slaves

The Arab/islamic slave trade throughout 1400 years is by far the most extensive and disgusting in the history of the world (see e.g. Lal's example from India to better understand how the system worked). However, ask your kids if their teacher has even mentioned it! Guess not, cause that would be "islamophobia", the worst crime in Sharia next after apostasy, i.e. leaving islam (OIC is busy abusing UN for the purpose of criminalizing criticism of islam/Sharia. OIC is even introducing a global Sharia ruled criminal court for the purpose of defending the worst crime ever against humanity). Moreover, islam itself was a product of slave raiding and trading. The Koran was just a later assembled manual for excusing looting, slavery and rapetivism. Don't ask yourself why muslim "extremists" have behaved so badly but rather why islam encourages them to do so. Don't wonder about why muslim majority countries have been so backward and poor (except when they've lived on slavery and oil). Read history and realize that islam is pure parasitism. When did you last time buy a car or a camera etc. produced by an Arab muslim country?

If you have to pray, please do it for yourself - not as collective mob supporting islamofascism!

True islam and an ignorant white Western nun

Origin of the Goths and the Vikings

The world's oldest real portrait ever found (Central Europe). Carvings dated to 26-29,000 bp.

Japan's successful return to Earth mission 10 yrs before Europe's failed Rosetta

Origin of islam: One way Sharia slave finance and sex apartheid

The faith problem - rapetivism and Christian/muslim rap cooperation

Two slavs and one ex-muslim hit islam in its groin

Mishal Husain, Samantha Lewthwaite, Michael Adebolajo have sharia islam in common

Muslims and Hillary against Human Rights

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

The native "Brits" from Doggerland spoke a para-Finnish/Uralic language

Klevius main legacy will be the bias his IQ-powered interdisciplinary research reveals

It's quite common to laugh at presumably biased anthropologists from the past - especially if they were "white". However, a much more interesting and useful task is to search for today's bias. Klevius scientific methodology rests entirely on a relentless pursuit of self-criticism (the only truly scientific approach) which makes Klevius an utterly humble not to say laughable person but his revelations at least honest and hence well suited for targeting bias from moderately intelligent but highly subjective (or bribed) academics. Klevius intellectual heritage (father was Sweden's best chess player, both uncle's were Finland's top CEOs and sister scored highest in IBM's IQ test - also consider EMAH) doesn't hurt either. Moreover, although Bourdieu wasn't especially intelligent (his Masculine Domination is extremely shy, lame and shallow compared to Klevius take on sex segregation) his notes on the scholastic fallacy, Homo academicus and the theory of the theoretical point of view may have some bearing here for those who think it's more fancy to read Bourdieu than Klevius.

We non-muslims need to honor victims of islam and its racism - cause muslims won't

Nation of Islam leader Farra Khan aka Louis Wolcott (friend of Sadiq Khan), spreads murderous hate

Alwaleed bin Talal, a rape accused “man" who spends Western oil money on racist/sexist Sharia

How much suffering has this disgusting "man" Alwaleed bin Talal al Saud caused by spreading islamofascism around the world by the help of Western oil-money the Saudi dictator family has distributed via him?!

Contrast this scumbag against those (incl. Klevius) who relentlessly volunteer for spreading knowledge about Human Rights and are called "islamophobes" simply because islam doesn't submit to Human Rights (this is why the islamofascist organization OIC has openly abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).

Japanese 1959/1964 (Tokyo MS) high quality v European low quality

Klevius is YOUR unbiased and informed resource!

Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation, (sad, isn't it) and islam (the worst crime ever) is the most evil expression of sex segregation. By 'islam' Klevius means Sharia as described by Bill Warner as well a OIC and their Human Rights violating Sharia declaration on islamic "human rights".

Don't bother about stupid books, focus instead on OIC's islamofascist sharia manifesto!

Sunday, August 30, 2015

True* Finns vs false** muslims

* The Finns Party was previously known as the True Finns or Perussuomalaiset (also basic Finns). There's a very specific (and convincing) Finnish humor (mostly out of reach for non-Finns - but test the road movie mentioned below, it's in broken English) based on deep (almost depressing yet extremely funny) self-irony and self-criticism. This could be summarized in the Finnish word 'perusjuntti' which means a 'a basic unsophisticated and stubborn person'. There is no good English word for it.

 There's a classic joke about a Swede who invited a Finn for a drink, and when the Swede said "cheers" the Finn asked "should we drink or talk?", meaning you start talking only when you're drunk. To learn more about Finns check out Leningrad Cowboys Go America which is a 1989 road movie by Finnish film director Aki Kaurismäki about the adventures of a fictional Russian rock band (Leningrad Cowboys, that travels to the US to become famous. An other is Leningrad Cowboys Meet Moses.

 Bilal Philips (see pic below) has Qatar as his safe haven (invited by the muslim wanna-be cowboy above?) for his racist/sexist hate attacks and extremist "teaching" to young people around the world.

**  False as a politician if he's a true sharia muslim, or false as a muslim (apostate) if he's not.

Last time the Finns (what Klevius calls "Finland-Swedes" due to their bi-lingual capabilities in Old Nordic and Finnish) met with many muslims, was during the Viking age slave raid/trade (see Origin of the Vikings).

Jussi Halla-aho is a Finnish Slavic linguist, blogger and a member of the European Parliament and a politician for the Finns Party and was first elected to the Helsinki City Council in 2008 and to the Finnish parliament in 2011.

In December 2008, Halla-aho was put under investigation for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred (under Finnish law referred to as "ethnic agitation") for remarks published on his blog related to the sentencing of Seppo Lehto, where he wrote that the "prophet" Muhammad was a pedophile, referring to his relationship with Aisha, and that islam is a religion that sanctifies pedophilia. In an other text, that was a humorous response to a Finnish columnist of the newspaper Kaleva, who had written that drinking excessively and killing when drunk were cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Finns, Halla-aho asked if it could also be stated that robbing passersby and living on taxpayers' expense are cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Somalis.

On 8 September 2009, the District Court convicted Halla-aho of disturbing islamic worship, and ordered him to pay a fine of 330 euros. The charge of ethnic agitation was dismissed. In October 2010 the Court of Appeal agreed with the District Court's conviction. Both the prosecutor and Halla-aho appealed the case to the Supreme Court. In a sentence given on the 8 of June 2012, the Supreme Court found Halla-aho guilty of both disturbing islamic worship and of ethnic agitation and increased his fines accordingly to 400 euros.

In September 2011 Halla-aho wrote in Facebook that Greece's debt problems cannot be resolved without a military junta. He soon retracted the comment, clarifying that his intention was merely to point out that making necessary but unpopular decisions is not easy in a democracy. Timo Soini, the leader of the party, demanded a temporary suspension of Halla-aho from the parliamentary group. In the end the parliamentary group unanimously (Halla-aho himself included) suspended Halla-aho for two weeks, although Soini had initially called for a month-long suspension.

Mohammed Abdirahim Hussein is a Somalian-born Finnish media muslim and muslim "politician"* representing the Finnish Centre Party (Keskusta). In 2007, Mohamed became the first immigrant to chair a political party organization in Finland when he was elected Chairman of the Helsinki Centre Youth. He is the Chairman of Moniheli, a co-operation network for multicultural organizations in the Helsinki capital region. Mohammed even has his own muslim radio show on Finnish National Radio Yle.

* There's no way you can be both a true sharia muslim and a true politician guided by the most basic of the Universal Human Rights Declaration that underpins Western type democracies. Either he lies as a politician or he's not a sharia muslim but an apostate, i.e. what islam considers the worst of crimes.

While the Vikings seem to have developed, sharia muslims are still stuck in medieval darkness while masquerading themselves with civilized attire and islamofascist taqiya.

YLE's reporters seemed more hostile towards Jussi Halla-aho while being much more lenient with Mohammed Abdirahim Hussein. We've seen that tendency before though, haven't we.

In this debate program by Finnish YLE, Mohammed Abdirahim Hussein showcased all the most common taqiya deceptions that muslims are taught to use when talking to the "infidel" public, such as, for example, personal* attacks instead of sharia islam (called "fundamentalism" in the program); avoiding sensitive questions by turning them back on the critic, Christianity, "crusades", etc. instead of answering; playing the race card; playing the victim card; playing the "most-muslims-don't card etc. Klevius cure against such deception is simple: Check the origin of islam and pair it with the horrifying fact that 57 states in UN have agreed that muslims should be able to violate the most basic of Human Rights. Why? Because islam isn't compatible with Human Rights - and islamofascist Saudi based and Saudi steered OIC is the only proof you need to show that!

 * Questions Halla-aho's English although Mohammed Abdirahim Hussein himself still seems to have trouble with his Finnish. Calls Halla-aho "a criminal" because of the €400 fine for joking about Somalis and islam. Calls Halla-aho a "hate imam" because of his criticism of muslim hate imams, while never addressing the real issues about islam, etc. etc.

Klevius recommendation to YLE (or someone else in Finland): Invite an other Somali, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to spend some time with Mohammed Abdirahim Hussein!

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". 

This is how it looks like in UK where Labour seems to be most pro-islamofascism.

Former Labour leader Red Ed Miliband who probably lost the election because of his threat to outlaw "islamophobia" - something that was too much even for the timid Labour Brits at a time when British born Jihad John chops necks in the service of the Islamic State.

At least 234,000 UK muslims have a "very favorable" or "somewhat favorable" view on the Islamic State!

Today (2015) approximately 78,000* UK muslims have a "very favorable" view on the Islamic State while some 156,000 have a "somewhat favorable" view. 

* Cautiously estimated on 2.6 million adult UK muslims (2011 census). 

How do Jeremy Corbyn's (the socialist who, like Erdogan, thinks islam critics, i.e. so called "islamophobes", are the most "disgusting of terrorists") Jew hating muslim friends fit in the picture?

So what do those "muslims" think who don't approve of sharia but rather stick with Human Rights? And Jews who don't want to submit under islam. Should we just allow spineless bigoted hypocrite politicians like Jeremy Corbyn to assist in their extermination.

Saudi based OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!

Klevius question: Why aren't muslims ashamed of their slave raiding/trading/owning past? And of the Koranic ideology that "justifies" it - instead of excusing islam with cherry picked "new interpretations"

Basic Human Rights violating sharia is the border zone between islamofascists and Human Rights "muslims"!

Klevius wrote:

Monday, February 17, 2014

Finland in the grip of Saudi islamic hate mongering and muslim racism and sexism

Why don't hate speech laws apply to islamic hate speech?

BBC: The root cause of islamic conflicts isn't islam but poverty.
Klevius: Well dah! Islam without slaves, looting or oil has always meant poverty for the masses! The original idea of islam is parasitism!
If all the atrocities that were/are inspired/sanctioned by islamic ideology (in the same way as we consider National socialism/Nazism and communism inspired/sanctioned German Holocaust, Pol Pot's killing fields, Stalin's and Mao's genocides, etc) islam is by far not only the worst crime ever against humanity throughout 1400 years but still today produces more suffering than any other ideology - including North Korea!

The term homophobic is often applied to anyone who is opposed to the gay life-style. When in fact, most who speak against it are not at all phobic (fearful) of homosexuals, but are speaking in respect to their faith and what God says about the homosexual lifestyle (Sharia, which ALWAYS violates basic Human Rights and which is supposed to cover 'all aspects of life').

The term islamophobic is often applied to anyone who is opposed to islam. When in fact, most who speak against islam are not at all phobic (fearful) of muslims, but are speaking in respect to their belief and what Human Rights say about the muslim lifestyle.

Critics have argued that the term ‘hate speech’ is a modern example of Newspeak [George Orwell’s], used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear political correct.”4 We often see that the ones most vocal about the ills of hate speech are themselves the most guilty of intolerant hate speech.

There is no clear line between religious dissent and blasphemy.

The relation between right and restriction and between norm and
exception must not be reversed.

And finally, the most important one. Restrictions should never favor one ideology over the other. Whereas Human Rights see muslims as equal to non-muslims, muslims (via islamic Sharia) have a supramacist view on non-muslims.


If these Finnish muslims didn't tell about OIC's world Sharia and due criminalization of Human Rights for these Finnish "infidels" (from the True Finns party) visiting their mosque - then they committed 

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission.  An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

There are two forms of muslims lying to non-believers (infidels) that are permitted in islam, taqiyya and kitman.  These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of islam - for example by gaining the trust of non-believers (infidels) in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them (more about this furthest down on the post).

The True Finns party combines left-wing economic policies with conservative social values, socio-cultural authoritarianism, and ethnic nationalism. Finnish immigration policy should be based on the fact that the Finns should always be able to decide for themselves the conditions under which a foreigner can come to our country and reside in our country. This couöd be compared with UK which seems to have a similar policy - yet without any reaction towards the non-British represented by Sharia muslims who can do almost whatever. Several researchers have described the True Finns party as fiscally centre-left, socially conservative, a "centre-based populist party" or the "most left-wing of the non-socialist parties", whereas other scholars have described them as radically right-wing populist.

Here naive representatives for the True Finns are visiting a Helsinki mosque - but their second most popular parlamentarian Jussi Halla-aho (see below) was forbidden to enter because he understands what islam is really about.

This is Jussi Halla-aho, a Finnish linguist and parlamentarian for the True Finns. On 27 March 2009, the Helsinki District Court ordered Halla-aho to trial on charges of ethnic agitation as well as breach of the sanctity of religion. The charges arose after Halla-aho posted remarks related to the sentencing of Seppo Lehto on his blog Scripta. In the course of the remarks, Halla-aho said the prophet Muhammad was a paedophile, and islam is a religion of paedophilia, because Muhammad had intercourse with his 9-year-old wife and according to Sunnah Mohammed's life is exemplary in every way. He also asked if it could be stated that robbing passersby and living on taxpayers' expense are cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Somalis. This was stated in sarcastic response to a Finnish columnist that wrote that drinking excessively and fighting when drunk were cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Finns.

Jussi Halla-aho was sentenced to fines and the Supreme court sanctioned it!

The Finnish lion is here (1583) tramping the evil islamic scimitar

and here (1917) the first flag of independent Finland

Finland's Supreme Court uses Human Rights for the purpose of bowing for islamic Sharia, which is AGAINST Human Rights!

Finland's Supreme Court decision KKO:2012:58 against Jussi Hall-aho

Jussi Halla-aho: ”Profeetta Muhammad oli pedofiili, ja islam on pedofilian pyhittävä uskonto, siis pedofiiliuskonto. Pedofilia on Allahin tahto.”

Klevius translation: Jussi Halla-aho was sentenced to fines because of his interpretation of islam in accordance with islamic texts: "Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, and islam is a faith that sanctifies pedophilia, i.e. a pedophilia faith. Pedophilia is the will of Allah".

(if there's anyone not mastering Finnish - would that even be possible considering root-Finnish is perhaps the oldest existing major language in the world - then jump down to Klevius analysis)

20. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A:n tarkoituksena väitteet esittäessään on saattanut sinänsä osaltaan olla arvostella viranomaisten toimintaa eri uskontoihin liittyvissä sananvapauskysymyksissä. Niin kuin A:kin on todennut, uskonnosta ja sen opista on voitava käydä kriittistä keskustelua. Uskontoja ja niiden oppeja koskeva kärkevä, pisteliäs ja jopa loukkaavaksikin koettavissa oleva arvostelu on siten sananvapauteen kuuluvana oikeutena lähtökohtaisesti sallittua. Näin on asia varsinkin silloin, kun tällaista keskustelua käydään tai arvostelua esitetään yhteiskunnallisesti merkityksellisessä asiayhteydessä, kuten sananvapaudesta tai viranomaistoiminnasta käytävän asiallisen keskustelun yhteydessä. Niin kuin edellä viitatusta ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisukäytännöstäkin ilmenee, sananvapaus ei kuitenkaan ole edes tällöin rajoittamaton.

21. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että kysymyksessä olevat väitteet, joiden mukaan profeetta Muhammad oli pedofiili, islam pedofilian pyhittävä pedofiiliuskonto ja pedofilia Allahin tahto, ovat sekä sisällöltään että erityisesti ilmaisutavaltaan voimakkaan herjaavia ja häpäiseviä. Tämä ilmaisujen luonne on ilmeinen sellaisellekin, joille niiden kohteet eivät ole pyhiä. Kysymys ei siten ole ollut pelkästään uskonnon ja siihen liittyvien ilmiöiden asiallisesta arvostelusta kärjekkäitä, loukkaavia tai provosoivia ilmaisuja käyttäen, vaan sen laatuisesta herjaavasta hyökkäyksestä islamia ja sen pyhänä pitämiä kohtaan, jonka johdosta muslimit ovat voineet perustellusti tuntea joutuneensa oikeudettoman ja loukkaavan hyökkäyksen kohteeksi (I.A. v. Turkki 13.9.2005 kohta 29). Nykyislamiin ja sen pyhinä pitämiin uskonnollisen kunnioituksen kohteisiin kohdistuvien väitteiden herjaavuutta ei ole ollut omiaan vähentämään se A:n esiin nostama seikka, että kirjoituksessa on pyritty todistelemaan sanottujen väitteiden paikkansapitävyyttä viittaamalla profeetta Muhammadin elämästä koraanissa kerrottuun.

22. Korkein oikeus katsoo, että sanotun kaltaisten herjaavien väitteiden esittämiseen ei ole oikeuttanut A:n väittämä tarkoitus selvittää sananvapauden rajoja tai osoittaa viranomaistoiminnan epäjohdonmukaisuutta. Näihin kysymyksiin liittyvän, voimakkaankin arvostelun esittäminen olisi ollut mahdollista ilman islamin pyhänä pitämien arvojen häpäisemistä. Kyseessä olevan kaltaiset, koko uskontokunnan ja sen pyhät kunnioituksen kohteet voimakkaan kielteisesti leimaavat herjaavat iskulauseet eivät edistä uskonnoista tai yhteiskunnallisista kysymyksistä käytävää keskustelua, vaan ne ovat päinvastoin omiaan herättämään ja vahvistamaan uskonnollista suvaitsemattomuutta ja ennakkoluuloja. Näistä syistä sekä yleisen järjestyksen ja yhteiskuntarauhan säilyttämistavoitteen kannalta on perusteltua, että tällaisten väitteiden esittäjän sananvapauden suojaan puututaan rikosoikeudellisin seuraamuksin.

23. Kysymyksessä olevien lausumien sisältö ja esitystapa huomioon ottaen A on epäilyksittä käsittänyt niiden herjaavan ja häpäisevän luonteen. Myös A:n väittämä pyrkimys koetella sananvapauden rajoja ”heittämällä” syyttäjälle ”syötti” osaltaan osoittaa sen, että hän on mieltänyt esittämiensä väitteiden loukkaavan muslimien uskonnollisia tunteita tunnusmerkistön täyttävällä tavalla. Tietoiseen loukkaamistarkoitukseen viittaa sekin, että ilmaisut on esitetty kirjoituksessa kahdesti muusta tekstistä selvästi erottuvalla tekstityypillä. A on siten ne esittäessään toiminut rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:ssä tarkoitetussa loukkaamistarkoituksessa.

Klevius analysis: According to the Supreme court of Finland, islam is forbidden in comparisons aimed to test what is assaulting to non-muslim Finns and how political correctness may bias such a comparison. Well, Jussi Halla-aho certainly proved his case by this very statement by the Supreme court! What other subject than islam could possibly have fulfilled all the criterion?!

The Supreme court also refers to 'contemporary islam' which by any standard  cannot mean  anything else than OIC, all muslims world organization, initiated by the Saudis, based in Saudi Arabia, and led by a Saudi Wahhabist, Iyad Madani.Moreover, OIC has managed not only to officially abandon Human Rights in UN but also to use UN as a legal hub for the spreading of legal pressure on non-muslim (infidel) UN member states to "tolerate" islamic Sharia, i.e. to criminalize some of the most important basic Human Rights! Finland is well on its way...

Here's  the full text of jhe judgement (ask for clarification if you need. Klevius masters both Finnish and the legal context):

Uskonrauhan rikkominen
Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan
Diaarinumero:    R2010/1101
Esittelypäivä:    24.1.2012
Antopäivä:    8.6.2012
Taltio:    1101

A oli internetissä olevalla sivustollaan julkaissut kirjoituksen, jossa oli esitetty islaminuskoa ja somaleja loukkaavia lausumia. Kysymys siitä, oliko A menettelyllään syyllistynyt uskonrauhan rikkomiseen ja kiihottamiseen kansanryhmää vastaan.

RL 17 luku 10 §
RL 11 luku 10 §
Asian käsittely alemmissa oikeuksissa
Muutoksenhaku korkeimmassa oikeudessa
Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisu
Asian käsittely alemmissa oikeuksissa
Syyttäjän rangaistusvaatimus Helsingin käräjäoikeudessa

Syyttäjä vaati A:lle rangaistusta ensinnäkin rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:n nojalla uskonrauhan rikkomisesta (kohta 1). Syytteen mukaan A oli julkaissut lausunnon, joissa hän oli loukkaamistarkoituksessa julkisesti herjannut ja häpäissyt sitä, mitä uskonnonvapauslaissa tarkoitetut islamilaiset uskonnolliset yhdyskunnat pitävät pyhänä. Lausunnon sisältö oli seuraava:

”Profeetta Muhammad oli pedofiili, ja islam on pedofilian pyhittävä uskonto, siis pedofiiliuskonto. Pedofilia on Allahin tahto.”

A oli toimittanut edellä tarkoitetun lausunnon yleisön saataville kirjoituksessa, jonka hän oli julkaissut 3.6.2008 internetissä olevalla sivustollaan. A:n julkaisema väite, joka oli sanamuodoltaan selkeä ja jota esitettiin korostetulla kirjoitustyylillä kahdesti kysymyksessä olevassa kirjoituksessa, loukkasi Suomessa asuvien muslimien uskonnollisia vakaumuksia ja tuntoja sekä vaaransi yhteiskunnassa vallitsevan uskonrauhan.

Lisäksi syyttäjä vaati A:lle rangaistusta rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:n nojalla kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan (kohta 2). Syytteen mukaan A oli yleisön keskuuteen levittänyt lausunnon ja tiedonannon, joissa paneteltiin ja solvattiin somaleista koostuvaa kansallista tai siihen rinnastettavaa ryhmää. Lausunnon sisältö oli seuraava:

”Ohikulkijoiden ryöstely ja verovaroilla loisiminen on somalien kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre.”

A oli toimittanut edellä tarkoitetun lausunnon yleisön saataville kirjoituksessa, jonka hän oli julkaissut 3.6.2008 internetissä olevalla sivustollaan. A oli kyseisessä kirjoituksessa myös todennut, että ”kaikki somalit eivät tietenkään ryöstä tai loisi verovaroilla” ja ettei hän käsittele väitteen sisältöä faktana. A:n lausuma, jonka mukaan ryöstely ja verovaroilla loisiminen on somalien kansallinen tai geneettinen erityispiirre, sisälsi asiallisesti väitteen, että kysymyksessä olevaan ryhmään kuuluvilla ihmisillä oli ominaispiirre, joka ennalta määrätysti johtaa heidän kohdallaan yleiseen rikollisuuteen ja verovaroil¬la loisimiseen. Sanottu syrjivä ja vahvasti yleistävä väite oli siten sanottua ihmisryhmää solvaava ja panetteleva, koska siinä kerrotuin tavoin kuvattiin kokonaiseen kansanryhmään kuuluvat ihmiset rikollisina ja yhteiskunnan loisina ja muihin nähden ala-arvoisina. Lausunto loukkasi näiden ihmisten ihmisarvoa.

Syyttäjä vaati lisäksi sananvapauden käyttämisestä joukkoviestinnässä annetun lain 22 §:n 3 momentin nojalla, että sisällöltään lainvastaiset verkkoviestit määrätään poistettavaksi yleisön saatavilta ja hävitettäväksi.

A kiisti syytteen sekä vaatimuksen verkkoviestien poistamisesta.

Syytteessä kerrotut lauseet oli irrotettu asiayhteydestään. A:lla ei ollut ollut tarkoitus herjata ja häpäistä sitä, mitä uskonnonvapauslaissa tarkoitetut islamilaiset uskonnolliset yhdyskunnat pitävät pyhänä eikä panetella ja solvata somaleista koostuvaa kansallista tai siihen rinnastettavaa ryhmää. A oli kirjoituksissaan arvostellut ajatusta, että lauseen subjektiivinen loukkaavuus voisi johtaa siihen, että sitä tulisi pitää rikosoikeudellisesti loukkaavana. Tosiasioiden sanominen ei voinut olla loukkaavaa, vaikka joku siitä loukkaantuikin. Vaikka Muhammad oli pyhä hahmo, hän ei ollut immuuni kritiikille vaan häntäkin historiallisena henkilönä oli voitava arvostella.

Somaleita koskeva kirjoituksen osa oli parodia sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoituksesta siten, että siinä suomalaiset oli korvattu somaleilla. A:n esittämä väite oli ilmeisen naurettava ja törkeä, mutta sillä oli tarkoitus irvailla Julkisen sanan neuvoston ratkaisulle Kalevan pääkirjoitusta koskevassa kanteluasiassa. Eri kansanryhmiä tuli perustuslain ja lain mukaan käsitellä samalla tavalla.

A:n kirjoituksissa oli kysymys sananvapaudesta ja tasa-arvosta.
Käräjäoikeuden tuomio 8.9.2009


Asiassa oli riidatonta, että A oli 3.6.2008 julkaissut internetissä kotisivuillaan kirjoituksen, niin sanotun blogin, otsikolla ”Muutama täky Illmanin Mikalle”. Kirjoituksessa A oli ensin käsitellyt erästä muun ohessa uskonrauhan rikkomista ja kiihottamista kansanryhmää vastaan koskevaa oikeudenkäyntiä, jossa valtionsyyttäjä Illman oli toiminut syyttäjänä. A, joka oli ollut eri mieltä käräjäoikeuden tuomion ja Illmanin kanssa siitä, oliko jutun vastaaja syyllistynyt uskonrauhan rikkomiseen, oli kirjoittanut tummennettuna syytteen 1 kohdassa kerrotun väitteen yläotsikolla ”Aion seuraavaksi heittää Mikalle syötin:”

Syytekohdassa 1 kerrotun väitteen esitettyään A oli perustellut sitä ja perustelujen jälkeen hän oli toistanut väitteen tummennettuna ja alleviivattuna. Seuraavaksi A oli esittänyt syytekohdassa 2 kerrotun väitteensä väliotsikon ”Seuraava täky kuuluu:” alla. A oli perustellut myös tätä väitettään ja todennut lopuksi väitteen tummennettuna toistaessaan ”niinpä esitän uudelleen arveluni; (jota en käsittele faktana):” Kirjoituksensa lopuksi A oli lausunut ”näissä merkeissä toivotan Mikalle hyvää päivän jatkoa”.

Sovellettavaksi tulevista oikeusohjeista

Perustuslaki ja kansainväliset ihmisoikeussopimukset

Käräjäoikeus viittasi Suomen perustuslain 11 §:ään, jonka mukaan jokaisella on uskonnon ja omantunnon vapaus, sekä 12 §:ään, jonka mukaan jokaisella on sananvapaus. Sananvapauteen sisältyy oikeus ilmaista, julkistaa ja vastaanottaa tietoja, mielipiteitä ja muita viestejä kenenkään ennakolta estämättä. Sananvapaus taataan myös Suomea sitovissa kansainvälisissä ihmisoikeussopimuksissa, Euroopan neuvoston piirissä hyväksytyssä yleissopimuksessa ihmisoikeuksien ja perusvapauksien suojaamiseksi, sen 10 artiklassa, sekä Yhdistyneiden kansakuntien piirissä hyväksytyssä kansalaisoikeuksia ja poliittisia oikeuksia koskevassa kansainvälisessä yleissopimuksessa, sen 19 artiklan 2 kappaleessa.

Perustuslain suojaama sananvapaus ei kuitenkaan ole rajoittamaton, vaan sitä rajoittavat muun ohessa rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:n säännös, joka koskee uskonrauhan rikkomista sekä rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:ään sisältyvä säännös kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan.

Uskonrauhan rikkominen

Käräjäoikeus totesi, että uskonrauhan rikkomiseen syyllistyy muun ohessa henkilö, joka julkisesti pilkkaa tai loukkaamistarkoituksessa julkisesti herjaa tai häpäisee sitä, mitä uskonnonvapauslaissa tarkoitettu kirkko tai uskonnollinen yhdyskunta muutoin pitää pyhänä.

Rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:n perusteluissa (HE 6/1997) todettiin, ettei uskonnollisen yhteisön asiallinen arvostelu toteuta uskonrauhan rikkomisen tunnusmerkistöä. Sitä ei lain esitöiden mukaan toteuttanut myöskään ivallisessa sävyssä tapahtuva arvostelu, johon sisältyi asiallisia perusteita. Kysymyksessä olevan säännöksen soveltaminen edellytti hallituksen esityksen mukaan, että oli ilmaistu pyhänä pidettävään seikkaan kohdistuva käsitys, joka oli omiaan halventamaan kohteen arvoa toisen ihmisen silmissä. Teko voitiin katsoa tapahtuneen loukkaamistarkoituksessa, kun herjaamisen tai häpäisemisen loukkaavuuden käsittivät myös sellaiset henkilöt, jotka kenties itse eivät pitäneet herjaamisen tai häpäisemisen kohdetta pyhänä, mutta antoivat arvoa toisella tavalla ajattelevien ihmisten vakaumukselle.

Käräjäoikeus viittasi perustuslakivaliokunnan lakivaliokunnalle antamaan lausuntoon (PeVL 23/1997), jossa todettiin, että uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevan rangaistussäännöksen suojelukohteina olivat kansalaisten uskonnolliset vakaumukset ja tunteet sekä uskonrauha yhteiskunnassa. Säännöksen taustalla oli siten sekä yleinen järjestys että toinen perusoikeus, hallitusmuodon 9 §:ssä turvattu yksilön uskonnonvapaus. Näitä rajoitusperusteita perustuslakivaliokunta oli pitänyt tuolloin voimassa olleen hallitusmuodon 10 §:n ja Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklan 2 kappaleen mukaisina.

Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan

Käräjäoikeus totesi, että kiihottamiseen kansanryhmää vastaan syyllistyy henkilö, joka yleisön keskuuteen levittää lausuntoja tai muita tiedonantoja, joissa uhataan, panetellaan tai solvataan jotakin kansallista, etnistä, rodullista tai uskonnollista ryhmää taikka niihin rinnastettavaa muuta kansanryhmää.

Kiihottamista kansanryhmää vastaan koskeva säännös oli alunperin otettu lakiin vuonna 1970, koska Yhdistyneiden kansakuntien hyväksymän kaikkinaisen rotusyrjinnän poistamista koskevan kansainvälisen yleissopimuksen ratifiointi edellytti kansallisen lainsäädännön saattamista vastaamaan sopimuksen sisältöä. Yleissopimuksen 4 artiklan a) kohdan mukaan sopimukseen liittyvät valtiot sitoutuivat määräämään lain mukaan rangaistaviksi teoiksi rodulliseen ylemmyyteen tai rotuvihaan perustuvien aatteiden levittämisen, rotusyrjintään yllyttämisen, jokaisen väkivallanteon tai kiihottamisen sellaiseen tekoon jotain rotua tai muuta ihonväriä tai etnistä alkuperää olevaa henkilöryhmää vastaan sekä rotusortotoiminnan avustamisen tavalla tai toisella, mukaan luettuna sen rahoitus.

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisuista

Käräjäoikeus totesi, että sananvapauden ja sen rajoitusten laajuutta tulkittaessa oli otettava huomioon paitsi kansallisten säännösten tarkoitus myös sananvapauden rajoittamisen tulkinta Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisukäytännössä. Ihmisoikeustuomioistuin oli lukuisissa ratkaisuissaan arvioinut ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklan sananvapauden suojaa tapauksissa, joissa valittajat oli tuomittu jäsenmaassa rangaistukseen lausumista, joiden oli katsottu ylittäneen sananvapauden rajat.

Poliittiset mielipiteet kuuluivat sananvapauden ytimeen ja niillä oli vahvin sananvapauden suoja. Ihmisoikeustuomioistuin oli toistuvasti lausunut perusteluissaan lähtökohdan olevan, ettei ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklan 2 kohta antanut juurikaan mahdollisuutta rajoittaa sananvapautta poliittisen puheen kohdalta tai yleisesti merkittävissä kysymyksissä. Poliittista puhetta ei ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen mukaan saanut rajoittaa ilman pakottavia syitä. Toisaalta ihmisoikeustuomioistuin oli poliittisia kannanottoja koskevissa ratkaisuissa ja siis sananvapauden ydinalueen kysymyksiä käsitellessään korostanut, että suvaitsevaisuus ja ihmisten välinen tasa-arvo kuuluvat demokratian kulmakiviin. Demokratiassa saattoi ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen perustelujen mukaan tämän vuoksi olla välttämätöntä määrätä seuraamuksia tai ryhtyä ennalta estäviin toimenpiteisiin silloin, kun lausumilla yllytettiin suvaitsemattomuuteen perustuvaan vihaan uskonnollinen suvaitsemattomuus mukaan lukien, taikka luotiin, edistettiin, puolustettiin tai yritettiin perustella sitä. Seuraamusten ja toimenpiteiden oli oltava oikeassa suhteessa hyväksyttäviin tavoitteisiin. Vihapuheet, jotka saattoivat loukata henkilöitä tai henkilöryhmiä, eivät ansainneet 10 artiklan suojaa. Sille, oliko kysymys vihapuheesta, oli ratkaisukäytännössä annettu olennainen merkitys.

Käräjäoikeus totesi, että A oli kunnallispoliitikko. Hän ei ollut esittänyt syytteessä kerrottuja lausumiaan varsinaisessa poliittisessa keskustelussa. Oli kuitenkin käräjäoikeuden mukaan mahdollista, että hän pyrki kirjoittamalla säännöllistä blogia luomaan itsestään kuvaa, joka saattoi edistää myös hänen poliittisia tarkoitusperiään. Vaikka A:n kirjoituksissa liikuttiin ainakin varsin lähellä sananvapauden ydinaluetta, ei sananvapaus tuoltakaan osin ollut sovellettavaksi tulevien normien ja oikeuskäytännön valossa rajoittamaton.

Kohta 1: Uskonrauhan rikkominen

Käräjäoikeus piti riidattomana, että islam oli rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:n 1 kohdassa tarkoitettu uskonnollinen yhdyskunta ja että Muhammad oli islamissa säännöksen tarkoittamalla tavalla pyhä. Riidatonta oli niin ikään, että A:n syytekohdassa 1 tarkoitettu väite oli esitetty lain tarkoittamalla tavalla julkisesti.

A oli syytteessä kerrotut väitteet esitettyään pyrkinyt osoittamaan ne itse määrittelemällään tavalla loogisten päättelyketjujen avulla todeksi sekä samassa että myöhemmin blogipalstallaan julkaisemissaan kirjoituksissa. A:n perustelut lähtivät eräistä uskonnollisen teoksen yksityiskohdista ja teoksesta kysymyksessä olevassa uskonnossa esitetystä totuudellisuusarvioinnista.

A:n väitteet oli muotoiltu siten, että ne yleistivät väitteen sisällön koskemaan paitsi islamin pyhiä kohteita Muhammadia ja Allahia, myös koko uskontokuntaa. A:n tarkoituksellisesti toistama pedofilia-termi omasi poikkeuksellisen voimakkaan kielteisen arvolatauksen. Jo A:n valitsema sanamuoto oli näin ollen omiaan halventamaan hänen kirjoituksensa kohteen arvoa toisen ihmisen silmissä.

Käräjäoikeus katsoi yleisesti ottaen olevan selvää, että erilaisten uskonnollisten käsitteiden totuusarvosta ei voitu käydä keskustelua samalla tasolla kuin millä keskusteltiin esimerkiksi luonnontieteisiin liittyvistä kysymyksistä. Jälkimmäiset voitiin todistaa oikeiksi, kun sen sijaan objektiivisesti arvioiden jo minkä tahansa uskonnon olemukseen kuuluu, että sen käsitteisiin liittyvä totuus oli suhteellista. Logiikalla tai niin sanotuilla järkiperusteluilla ei tämän vuoksi ollut todellista merkitystä uskonnollisista kysymyksistä käytävässä keskustelussa. Uskontoon liittyvien pyhäksi määriteltyjen instituutioiden riitauttaminen ja halventaminen johtivat tämän vuoksi helposti enemmän tai vähemmän vakavaan kiistaan osapuolten välillä riippuen siitä, miten voimakas uskonnon asema henkilölle tai uskonnolliselle yhdyskunnalle oli. Nämä seikat filosofian tohtori A oli epäilemättä ymmärtänyt. A:n perustelut väitteilleen olivat siten tosiasiassa näennäiset siitä huolimatta, että ne näyttivät loogisilta. Toisin olisi asia ollut arvioitava esimerkiksi siinä tapauksessa, että A olisi asiallisia ja tavanomaisia sanamuotoja käyttäen kritisoinut esimerkiksi sellaisia konkreettisia tapauksia, joissa nuoret muslimitytöt olisivat joutuneet uskontonsa seurauksena huonosti kohdelluiksi.

A:n kirjoituksen erityispiirre oli, että se oli osoitettu tämän kaltaisiin asioihin erikoistuneelle syyttäjälle. Tuollainen väitetty sananvapauden- tai syytekynnyksen rajojen selvittämistarkoitus ei oikeuttanut menettelyyn, joka rikkoi lakia. Käräjäoikeuden mukaan oli selvää, että luettuaan A:n väitteet ja niiden perustelut myös sellaiset henkilöt, joille Muhammad tai islam eivät olleet pyhiä, ymmärsivät, että kysymys oli herjaamisesta ja häpäisemisestä ja pitivät väitteitä loukkaavina. Näin siitä huolimatta, että lukija oli voinut todeta A:n osoittaneen kirjoituksensa syyttäjälle.

Syytteessä kerrottujen väitteiden ja niiden perustelujen tarkoituksena ei ollut ollut käydä asiallista keskustelua islamin uskon epäkohdista vaan näennäisesti sananvapauden kustannuksella häpäistä kysymyksessä olevan uskonnon pyhiä arvoja. A:n lausuma oli ollut omiaan ruokkimaan uskonnollista suvaitsemattomuutta. Käräjäoikeuden johtopäätös oli, että A oli syytteen kohdassa 1 kerrotut väitteet esittäessään toiminut loukkaamistarkoituksessa ja syyllistynyt siten uskonrauhan rikkomiseen.

Kohta 2: Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan

Käräjäoikeus piti kohdan 2 osalta riidattomana, että syytteessä kerrottu väite oli levitetty yleisön keskuuteen.

A:n väitteen sisältö oli tekstin kokonaisuudesta irrotettuna tyypillinen niin sanottu vihapuhe. Pelkästään kysymyksessä olevan lauseen lukemalla voisi päätellä, että A:n tarkoituksena olisi ollut yleistämällä halventaa ja solvata lukijoille somalialaista alkuperää olevia maahanmuuttajia. Asiaa ainoastaan tällä tavalla tarkasteltaessa olisi tultava siihen tulokseen, että A:n menettely täyttäisi kansanryhmää vastaan kiihottamisen tunnusmerkistön.

Kysymyksessä olevan lausuman perusteluista oli kuitenkin todettavissa, että A:n tosiasiallisena tarkoituksena oli tämän väitteensä osalta ollut arvostella viranomaisten menettelyä siltä osin kuin nämä eivät olleet puuttuneet sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoitukseen, jossa oli arveltu päissään tappamisen olevan suomalaisten kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre.

Syytteessä tarkoitetulla väitteellä A oli selvästi pyrkinyt osoittamaan olevan mahdollista, että maahanmuuttajat saattoivat nauttia parempaa suojaa viranomaisten taholta kuin alkuperäisväestö. A oli väitteensä perusteluissa lisäksi nimenomaisesti ilmoittanut, ettei hänen tarkoituksenaan ollut yleistää väitettään koskemaan kaikkia somaleita, hän oli esittänyt väitteensä perusteeksi tilastotietoja ja korostanut, ettei käsitellyt väitettään faktana. Kirjoituksesta ilmeni, että A:n väite oli toteutettu satiirin keinoin viittaamalla sekä sanomalehden pääkirjoitukseen että siitä kantelun johdosta lausuneen Julkisen sanan neuvoston päätökseen. Väitettä ei ollut esitetty totuutena, eikä kirjoitusta voitu siten myöskään tulkita. Käräjäoikeuden johtopäätös oli, ettei A:n tarkoituksena ollut ollut panetella tai solvata somalialaisia vaan mainittu ihmisryhmä oli valikoitunut hänen viranomaistoimintaan kohdistamansa kritiikin välineeksi lähinnä sattumaan verrattavista syistä.

A:n kirjoituksesta ilmeni, että syytteen kohdissa 1 ja 2 tarkoitetut väitteet oli esitetty erilaisessa tarkoituksessa. Kohdassa 2 esitetyn väitteen osalta A:lta oli puuttunut panettelu- ja solvaustarkoitus. Käräjäoikeus hylkäsi syytteen kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan.


A oli julkaissut uskonrauhan rikkomisena hänen syykseen luetun kirjoituksen internetissä ja siten periaatteessa rajattoman lukijakunnan saataville. Kysymyksessä olevan kaltaisella blogikirjoittelulla oli kuitenkin todellisuudessa varsin rajallinen määrä lukijoita. Laajempaan tietoisuuteen syytteessä kerrotut väitteet olivat tulleet vasta, kun A:n joutuminen syytteeseen oli uutisoitu. Asian todellisuudessa saaman julkisuuden määrää A ei mitä ilmeisemminkään ollut kohdassa 1 käsitellyt väitteet kirjoittaessaan voinut arvata. A:n menettelystä ilmenevä hänen syyllisyytensä edellytti näissä olosuhteissa sakkorangaistuksen tuomitsemista.

Käräjäoikeus luki A:n syyksi kohdassa 1 tarkoitetun uskonrauhan rikkomisen ja tuomitsi hänet siitä 30 päiväsakkoon. Käräjäoikeus määräsi syytteessä tarkoitetusta kirjoituksesta poistettavaksi yleisön saatavilta yksilöimänsä yhdeksän kappaletta. Kohdan 2 syyte kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan hylättiin.

Asian on ratkaissut käräjätuomari Jussi Sippola.
Helsingin hovioikeuden tuomio 29.10.2010

Virallinen syyttäjä ja A valittivat hovioikeuteen.

A kertoi hovioikeudessa, että niin sanotun blogin pitäminen liittyi keskeisesti hänen poliittiseen toimintaansa ja että koko hänen poliittinen tunnettavuutensa edellisiä kuntavaaleja edeltävältä ajalta perustui blogiin. A käsitteli blogissaan muun muassa maahanmuuttoon ja monikulttuurisuuteen liittyviä kysymyksiä samoin kuin kielikysymyksiä ja sananvapausasioita. Syytteessä tarkoitetussa blogikirjoituksessaan A oli ottanut kantaa erääseen Tampereen käräjäoikeuden tuomioon muun muassa uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevassa asiassa ja kritisoinut käräjäoikeuden tulkintaa, jonka mukaan pelkkä henkilön kokema loukkaantuminen voisi tehdä väitteestä juridisessa mielessä lainvastaisen. Tulkinta johtaisi siihen, että esimerkiksi eri ihmisryhmiin ja heidän uskontoihinsa kohdistettavan kritiikin luvallisuus riippuisi siitä, miten herkkiä ihmisryhmät tai heidän edustajansa olivat loukkaantumaan arvostelusta. Lisäksi A oli ottanut kantaa sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoituksessa esitettyyn väitteeseen suomalaisten kansallisista tai geneettisistä erityispiirteistä. A oli pitänyt väitettä loukkaavana, ja hän olisi pitänyt vastaavaa väitettä loukkaavana riippumatta siitä, mihin kansanryhmään se kohdistui. A oli tuonut väitteen loukkaavuuden esiin omassa kirjoituksessaan korvaamalla sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoituksessa mainitut suomalaiset somaleilla, koska somalit nauttivat hänen mukaansa erityissuojelua Suomessa. Kirjoitus oli ollut kritiikkiä viranomaistoimintaa kohtaan. Kirjoituksen tyylilaji oli ollut hänen omaa sarkastista tyyliään.

Uskonrauhan rikkominen

Uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevan syyksilukemisen osalta hovioikeus hyväksyi käräjäoikeuden ratkaisun.

Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan

Tuomitseminen rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:ssä tarkoitetusta kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan edellytti tekijän tahallisuutta. Sanotun säännöksen esitöistä (LaVM 22/1994 vp s. 9 - 10) ilmeni, että säännöksessä mainitut teot oli arvioitu sellaisinaan niin haitallisiksi, että rikosoikeudellista rangaistusuhkaa oli pidetty perusteltuna riippumatta tekijän nimenomaisesta tarkoituksesta. Myöskään oikeuskäytännössä rangaistavuus ei ollut vakiintunut koskemaan vain panettelu- tai solvaustarkoituksessa tehtyjä tekoja. Asiassa oli siten kysymys siitä, oliko A:n täytynyt ymmärtää kohdassa 2 tarkoitetun väitteensä kansanryhmää panetteleva ja solvaava luonne, ja vaikka näin katsottaisiin olevan, mikä merkitys muun muassa perustuslain 12 §:ssä ja Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklassa turvatulle sananvapaudelle oli annettava arvioitaessa hänen rikosoikeudellista vastuutaan.

A ei ollut edes väittänyt, että kohdassa 2 tarkoitettu somaleja koskeva väite ei olisi ollut loukkaava. Päinvastoin hän oli lähtenyt siitä, että mainittu väite samoin kuin sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoituksessa esitetty etnisesti suomalaisia koskeva väite olivat loukkaavia. Jo tähän nähden oli selvää, että A:n oli täytynyt ymmärtää, että kohdassa 2 tarkoitettu väite sellaisenaan oli somaleja panetteleva ja solvaava. Näin ollen A:n teko täytti lähtökohtaisesti kiihottamista kansanryhmää vastaan koskevan rikoksen tunnusmerkistön.

Rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:n tulkinnassa ja soveltamisessa oli kuitenkin otettava huomioon myös sananvapauden suoja, jolloin mainitun rangaistussäännöksen turvaamia perusoikeuksia oli punnittava vastakkain sananvapauden kanssa. Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisukäytännöstä (esim. Feret v. Belgia, tuomio 16.7.2009) ilmeni käräjäoikeuden tuomiossa selostettujen seikkojen ohella, että poliittisessa keskustelussa oli voitava esittää käsityksiä yhteiskunnallisista ongelmista siitä huolimatta, että ne loukkaavat, järkyttävät tai huolestuttavat jotain väestönosaa. Samalla oli kuitenkin vältettävä rasistisen syrjinnän puoltamista.

Hovioikeuden mukaan yleisesti kiinnostavaan keskusteluun osallistuja sai turvautua tiettyyn liioitteluun tai jopa provokaatioon eli jossakin määrin maltittomiin lausumiin (esim. Carlan v. Romania, tuomio 20.4.2010, ja Haguenauer v. Ranska, tuomio 22.4.2010).

Hovioikeus totesi, että A:n blogissaan julkaisemat kirjoitukset olivat esitetyn näytön perusteella olleet olennainen osa hänen poliittista toimintaansa ja niillä oli ollut huomattava vaikutus hänen poliittiseen tunnettavuuteensa. Hovioikeus katsoi kuten käräjäoikeus, että kohdassa 2 tarkoitettu A:n blogissaan 3.6.2008 julkaisema somaleja koskeva väite liittyi jo sanavalinnoista ilmenevin tavoin välittömästi sanomalehti Kalevan 20.5.2008 julkaistuun pääkirjoitukseen ja siinä suomalaisista esitettyyn väitteeseen. A:n väitettä ei ollut perusteltua tarkastella irrallaan asiayhteydestään eli ottamatta huomioon sitä, että hän oli julkaissut väitteensä osana sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoitukseen sekä sitä seuranneisiin Julkisen sanan neuvoston ja syyttäjäviranomaisen ratkaisuihin kohdistunutta arvostelua. Oli selvää, että A olisi voinut valita kirjoitustyylinsä ja ilmaisunsa toisin ja asiallisemmin. A:n ilmeisenä pyrkimyksenä oli kuitenkin ollut osoittaa julkisuudessa suomalaisista esitetyn väitteen loukkaavuus rinnastamalla se suoraan toiseen kansanryhmään kohdistuvaan vastaavaan kärjekkääseen väitteeseen ja tällä tavoin kritisoida viranomaistoimintaa kyseisessä konkreettisessa tapauksessa. Ottaen huomioon edellä sekä käräjäoikeuden tuomiossa sananvapauden suojasta selostetut seikat hovioikeus katsoi, että kirjoituksen tässä osassa oli kokonaisuus huomioon ottaen pysytty sallitun liioittelun ja provokaation rajoissa. Kohdassa 2 tarkoitetun väitteen julkaisemista ei siten ollut tässä tapauksessa pidettävä oikeudenvastaisena ja rangaistavana.

Näillä ja muutoin käräjäoikeuden tuomiosta ilmenevillä perusteilla hovioikeus katsoi, että aihetta käräjäoikeuden tuomion lopputuloksen muuttamiseen kohdan 2 syytteen hylkäämisen osalta ei ollut.


Hovioikeus katsoi, että käräjäoikeuden A:lle tuomitsema sakkorangaistus oli oikeudenmukaisessa suhteessa hänen syykseen luetun rikoksen vahingollisuuteen ja vaarallisuuteen, teon vaikuttimiin sekä hänen muuhun rikoksesta ilmenevään syyllisyyteensä. Perusteita rangaistuksen tuomitsematta jättämiselle ei ollut. Näin ollen aihetta käräjäoikeuden tuomion muuttamiseen rangaistuksen osalta ei ollut.

Verkkoviestiä koskeva poistamisvaatimus

Hovioikeus muutti käräjäoikeuden ratkaisua määräten yleisön saatavilta poistattavaksi ja hävitettäväksi syyttäjän kohdan 1 osalta vaatiman sisällöltään lainvastaisen verkkoviestin siten, että poistamismääräys rajoitettiin kahteen kappaleeseen.

Asian ovat ratkaisseet hovioikeuden jäsenet Juha Paimela (eri mieltä), Leena Järvilahti ja Tatu Leppänen.

Eri mieltä ollut hovioikeudenneuvos Paimela totesi, että käräjäoikeuden tuomiossa selostetut A:n blogissaan yleisön saataville 3.6.2008 saattamat kirjoitukset sekä kohdan 1 että kohdan 2 osalta liittyivät molemmat olennaisena osana hänen poliittiseen toimintaansa ja niillä molemmilla oli ollut huomattava vaikutus hänen tunnettavuuteensa. Kirjoituksia ei kuitenkaan ollut, kuten käräjäoikeus oli todennutkin, esitetty poliittisessa keskustelussa eikä niiden suhdetta sananvapauteen näin ollen ollut arvioitava sinänsä lievemmin.

A oli kirjoituksessaan käräjäoikeuden tuomion 1 kohdassa kerrotuin tavoin kritisoinut muun muassa Tampereen käräjäoikeuden erästä tuomiota uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevassa asiassa, jossa oli kysymys islamista ja profeetta Muhammadista. A oli kritisoinut käräjäoikeuden tulkintaa rikoksen täyttymisestä. Arvostelunsa oikeuttamiseksi A oli halunnut asettaa asianomaiselle valtionsyyttäjälle syytteen 1 kohdassa tarkoitetun ”syötin” kysyäkseen, oliko näin ollen myös seuraava väite muslimien uskonnollisia tuntoja loukkaava ja siten laiton: ”Profeetta Muhammad oli pedofiili, ja islam on pedofilian pyhittävä uskonto, siis pedofiiliuskonto. Pedofilia on Allahin tahto.”

Kirjoituksessaan A myös itse vastasi väitteeseensä ja piti väitettä varmasti muslimien uskonnollisia tuntoja loukkaavana. Väite pedofiliasta perustui A:n mukaan siihen, että Muhammad ”viisikymppisenä äijänä” kihlasi 6- tai 7- vuotiaan Aishan ja miten heidän liittonsa ”täyttyi” Aishan ollessa 9-vuotias. A esitti ilmoituksensa mukaan ”loogiset ketjut”, joiden perusteella hän päätyi johtopäätökseen, että väitteen oikeellisuus voitiin kiistää vain kiistämällä koraanin totuudellisuus tahi Muhammadin asema Jumalan lähettiläänä, jonka teot ovat Jumalan tahdon mukaisia. A:n mukaan väite koraanin perusteella oli näin ollen tosi.

A oli kiistänyt kirjoituksellaan pyrkineensä koettelemaan ja testaamaan sananvapauden rajoja. A oli kiistänyt väitetyn loukkaamistarkoituksen.

Paimela totesi, että perustuslain 12 §:n ja Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklan takaama sananvapaus käsittää myös oikeuden esittää sellaista informaatiota, mielipiteitä ja ajatuksia, jotka loukkaavat, järkyttävät tai häiritsevät muita ihmisiä. Demokraattista yhteiskuntaa ei olisi ilman monikulttuurisuutta, suvaitsevaisuutta ja vapaamielisyyttä. Demokratialle oli olennaista sallia erilaisten mielipiteiden esittäminen ja herättäminen, kunhan ne eivät vahingoittaneet demokratiaa itseään. Näin ollen muun muassa uskonnot kuuluivat arvostelun piiriin, eikä sananvapautta pitänyt sinänsä rajoittaa uskonnon suojelemisen varjolla. Sellainen sananvapauden väärinkäyttö, jolla pyrittiin tekemään tyhjäksi muiden ihmisoikeussopimuksessa turvattujen oikeuksien toteutuminen, voitiin kuitenkin ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10(2) artiklan nojalla säätää rangaistavaksi.

A:n blogikirjoituksista, joita syyttäjä oli nimennyt todisteikseen, voitiin päätellä, että A, joka oli koulutukseltaan filosofian tohtori ja kielitieteilijä, oli taitava kirjoittaja. Kirjoitukset osoittivat niin sanottua kielenhallintaa; nyt kysymyksessä olevan edellä selostetun kirjoituksen kysymyksen asettelu ja alatyylisen tyylilajin valinta olivat selvästi harkittua. Riippumatta siitä, oliko A:n kirjoituksessaan kuvaama perusteluketju looginen vai ei, kirjoituksen sisältö oli käräjäoikeuden toteamin tavoin loukkaava. A oli julkaissut kirjoituksen loukkaamistarkoituksessa. Tässä tapauksessa A:n mainitunlaiseen kirjoitteluun ja siten sananvapauteen puuttuminen oli ollut välttämätöntä demokraattisessa yhteiskunnassa.

Sillä seikalla, että valtionsyyttäjän syyttämiskäytännössä jossain toisessa vastaavanlaisessa asiassa syytekynnyksen ylittymistä oli arvioitu mahdollisesti toisin, ei nyt kysymyksessä olevan asian arvioinnin kannalta ollut merkitystä.

Näillä ja muutoin käräjäoikeuden tuomiossa mainituilla perusteilla Paimela hylkäsi A:n valituksen kohdan 1 osalta ja jätti enemmistön tavoin käräjäoikeuden tuomion lopputuloksen pysyväksi. Muulta eli kohdan 2 osalta Paimela oli samaa mieltä kuin enemmistö.
Muutoksenhaku korkeimmassa oikeudessa

Syyttäjälle ja A:lle myönnettiin valituslupa. Syyttäjä vaati valituksessaan kohdan 2 osalta, että A:n syyksi luetaan kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan. Syyttäjä vaati lisäksi, että A:n kirjoitus poistetaan yleisön saatavilta siltä osin kuin siinä esitetään syytekohdassa 2 mainittu teksti.

A vaati valituksessaan, että uskonrauhan rikkomista koskeva syyte hylätään.

Syyttäjä vastasi A:n valitukseen ja vaati sen hylkäämistä. A ei käyttänyt hänelle varattua tilaisuutta vastata syyttäjän valitukseen.
Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisu

I Kysymyksenasettelu

1. A on internetissä olevalla sivustollaan julkaissut 3.6.2008 kirjoituksen otsikolla ”Muutama täky Illmanin Mikalle”. Kirjoituksessa on esitetty jäljempänä selostetut kaksi lausumaa, joiden johdosta virallinen syyttäjä on vaatinut A:lle rangaistusta rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:n nojalla uskonrauhan rikkomisesta ja rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:n nojalla kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan. Syyttäjä on lisäksi vaatinut, että syytteessä tarkoitetut sisällöltään lainvastaiset verkkoviestit määrätään sananvapauden käyttämisestä joukkoviestinnässä annetun lain 22 §:n 3 momentin nojalla poistettaviksi yleisön saatavilta ja hävitettäviksi.

2. Käräjäoikeus on lukenut A:n syyksi uskonrauhan rikkomisen ja tuominnut hänet siitä 30 päiväsakon rangaistukseen. Syyte kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan on käräjäoikeudessa hylätty. Käräjäoikeus on määrännyt kirjoituksen tuomiolauselmassa yksilöidyin tavoin poistettavaksi yleisön saatavilta.

3. Hovioikeus on pysyttänyt käräjäoikeuden tuomion lopputuloksen muutoin, mutta on määrännyt yleisön saatavilta poistettavaksi ja hävitettäväksi vain ne kirjoituksen kappaleet, joihin syyksilukeminen on kohdistunut.

4. Syyttäjän valituksen perusteella Korkeimmassa oikeudessa on kysymys siitä, onko A:n syyksi luettava myös kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan ja määrättävä myös tämän lausuman sisältävät verkkoviestin osat poistettavaksi ja hävitettäväksi. A:n valituksen perusteella kysymys on siitä, onko syyte uskonrauhan rikkomisesta hylättävä. Lisäksi kysymys on rangaistuksen määräämisestä.

II Uskonrauhan rikkominen

II.1. Uskonrauhan rikkomista koskeva rangaistussäännös ja sen tulkinnan lähtökohdat

5. Rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:n 1 kohdan mukaan uskonrauhan rikkomisesta tuomitaan se, joka julkisesti pilkkaa Jumalaa tai loukkaamistarkoituksessa julkisesti herjaa tai häpäisee sitä, mitä uskonnonvapauslaissa (267/1922) tarkoitettu kirkko tai uskonnollinen yhdyskunta muutoin pitää pyhänä.

6. Lainkohdan säätämiseen johtaneessa hallituksen esityksessä on todettu, että uskonnollisen yhteisön asiallinen arvostelu ei toteuta uskonrauhan rikkomisen tunnusmerkistöä. Sitä ei toteuta myöskään ivallisessa sävyssä tapahtuva arvostelu, johon sisältyy asiallisia perusteita. Säännöksen soveltaminen edellyttää, että on ilmaistu pyhänä pidettävään seikkaan kohdistuva käsitys, joka on omiaan halventamaan kohteen arvoa toisen ihmisen silmissä. Teon rangaistavuus edellyttää myös, että teko tapahtuu loukkaamistarkoituksessa. Loukkaus voidaan katsoa näin tehdyksi, kun herjaamisen tai häpäisemisen loukkaavuuden käsittävät myös sellaiset henkilöt, jotka kenties itse eivät pidä herjaamisen tai häpäisemisen kohdetta pyhänä, mutta antavat arvoa toisella tavalla ajattelevien ihmisten vakaumukselle (HE 6/1997 vp s. 128).

7. Niin kuin perustuslakivaliokunnan lausunnossa (PeVL 23/1997 vp s. 3) on todettu, rangaistussäännöksen suojelukohteina ovat kansalaisten uskonnolliset vakaumukset ja tunteet sekä uskonrauha yhteiskunnassa. Säännöksen taustalla on siten sekä yleinen järjestys että toinen perusoikeus, yksilön uskonnonvapaus.

8. Uskonnonvapautta turvataan nykyisin perustuslain 11 §:ssä ja Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 9 artiklassa. Rangaistussäännöksen tulkinnassa on lisäksi otettava huomioon perustuslain 12 §:ssä ja ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklassa turvattu sananvapauden suoja. Ihmisoikeussopimuksen 9 artiklan 2 kohdan ja 10 artiklan 2 kohdan mukaan sekä uskonnonvapautta että sananvapautta voidaan lailla rajoittaa, jos se on demokraattisessa yhteiskunnassa välttämätöntä muun muassa yleisen turvallisuuden, yleisen järjestyksen tai muiden henkilöiden oikeuksien turvaamiseksi. Perustuslakivaliokunta on edellä mainitussa lausunnossaan todennut, että uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevan rangaistussäännöksen taustalla olevia, kohdassa 6 mainittuja perusteita sananvapauden rajoittamiselle voitiin pitää tuolloisen hallitusmuodon 10 §:n ja ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklan 2 kappaleen mukaisina (PeVL 23/1997 vp s. 3).

9. Uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevan rangaistussäännöksen sisällössä on siten pyritty ottamaan huomioon vastakkain olevat perusoikeudet. Ne on myös säännöstä sovellettaessa sovitettava yhteen ja pyrittävä toteuttamaan rinnakkain. Perusoikeuksien keskinäinen punninta on tapauskohtaista, ja siinä on otettava huomioon muun muassa se, millaisesta, missä asiayhteydessä ja tarkoituksessa tehdystä ja kuinka voimakkaasta uskonnollisia arvoja vastaan kohdistuneesta loukkauksesta sananvapauden käyttämisessä on kysymys sekä muut olosuhteet. Tältä pohjalta on arvioitava, kuinka välttämättömänä sananvapauteen puuttumista on pidettävä.

II.2. A:n kirjoituksen sisältö

10. Kirjoituksessa on tuotu aluksi esille Tampereen käräjäoikeuden muutama päivä aikaisemmin antama tuomio, jolla eräs henkilö oli tuomittu vankeusrangaistukseen muun ohella uskonrauhan rikkomisesta sillä perusteella, että hän oli pilkannut profeetta Muhammadia. Kirjoituksen mukaan valtionsyyttäjä Mika Illmanin ja käräjäoikeuden kanta oli, että profeetta Muhammadin loukkaaminen oli laitonta, koska Muhammad on muslimeille pyhä, minkä seikan kirjoituksessa mainittu professori oli vahvistanut. Kirjoituksessa on edelleen todettu, että ”toisaalta professori osaisi varmasti vahvistaa senkin, että kristinuskossa Jeesus ja Jumala ovat pyhiä hahmoja. Tämä ei tietenkään estä ketään pilkkaamasta Jeesusta ja Jumalaa vapaasti valitsemallaan tavalla”.

11. Tämän jälkeen kirjoituksessa on esitetty: ”Aion seuraavaksi heittää Mikalle syötin: Profeetta Muhammad oli pedofiili, ja islam on pedofilian pyhittävä uskonto, siis pedofiiliuskonto. Pedofilia on Allahin tahto.” Tässä kappaleessa mainittu virke on merkitty kirjoitukseen vahvennetulla tekstityypillä.

12. Kirjoituksessa on kysytty, ovatko nämä lauseet laittomia, ja todettu niiden varmasti loukkaavan muslimin uskonnollisia tuntoja. Tämän jälkeen kirjoituksessa on ilmoitettu asiaa lähestyttävän loogisten ketjujen avulla ja tuotu esille ”viisikymppisen” Muhammadin ja hänen kihlaamansa 6- tai 7-vuotiaan Aishan aviosuhde sekä sen ”täyttyminen” tytön ollessa 9-vuotias. Edelleen kirjoituksessa on todettu, että vahvennetulla esitetyt väitteet eivät pitäisi paikkaansa vain, jos väitetään, että ”a) Koraani ei ole kirjaimellisesti totta (ts. Muhammad ei yhtynyt 9-vuotiaaseen tyttöön). Tämä ei käy, koska islamilaisen doktriinin ja muslimien näkemyksen mukaan Koraani on kirjaimellisesti otettavaa Jumalan sanaa. Yhtymistä ja Aishan ikää ei siis voitu kiistää loukkaamatta muslimeja. b) Muhammadin toiminta ei ollut kaikilta osin hyväksyttävää. Tämäkään ei käy, koska muslimien (ja Tampereen käräjäoikeuden) näkemyksen mukaan Muhammadin kritisointi on Jumalan kritisointia ja siten pyhäinhäpäisyä. Rangaistus on kuolema. Muslimit uskovat, että Muhammadin teot olivat Jumalan tahdon mukaisia. Koska lapseen yhtyminen oli Muhammadin teko, myös se oli Jumalan tahdon mukainen.”

13. Tämän jälkeen kirjoituksessa on todettu, että kaikki argumentatiiviset väylät vahvennetulla tekstityypillä esitettyjen väitteiden kumoamiseksi oli teologisesti tukittu ja että Muhammadin pedofiiliys ja muslimien sekä Allahin pedofiliamyönteisyys voitiin kiistää vain kiistämällä Koraanin kirjaimellinen totuudellisuus tai Muhammadin asema Jumalan lähettiläänä, jonka teot ovat Jumalan tahdon mukaisia. Lopuksi kirjoituksessa on toistettu vahvennetulla tekstityypillä aiemmin esitetty väite, tällä kertaa myös alleviivattuna.

II.3. Hovioikeuden tuomio ja A:n keskeiset perusteet syytteen kiistämiselle

14. Hovioikeuden hyväksymä syyte uskonrauhan rikkomisesta on perustunut siihen, että A oli edellä kohdassa 11 mainitulla kirjoituksessa korostetulla tekstityypillä kahdesti esittämällään lausumalla loukkaamistarkoituksessa julkisesti herjannut ja häpäissyt sitä, mitä uskonnonvapauslaissa tarkoitetut islamilaiset uskonnolliset yhdyskunnat pitävät pyhänä. Syytteessä on katsottu, että lausuman esittäminen loukkaa Suomessa asuvien muslimien uskonnollisia vakaumuksia ja vaarantaa yhteiskunnassa vallitsevan uskonrauhan.

15. A on esittänyt, että syytteenalaiset lausumat olivat olleet osa hänen sananvapaudesta käymäänsä keskustelua ja syyttäjäviranomaisiin kohdistuvaa arvostelua, jonka tarkoituksena on ollut osoittaa viranomaistoiminnan linjattomuus ja sananvapauden rajojen vaihteleminen eri uskonnoista keskusteltaessa. A:n mukaan väitteet eivät asiayhteydessään ole olleet loukkaavia, eikä hänellä ole ollut väitteet esittäessään lain edellyttämää loukkaamistarkoitusta. Hän on lisäksi todennut, että hänen esittämänsä väitteet ovat islamin omiin lähteisiin nojautuvina tosia.

II.4. Korkeimman oikeuden arviointi

16. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A on kirjoituksensa julkaistessaan toiminut kunnallispoliitikkona. Vaikka A ei ole esittänyt kysymyksessä olevia kirjoituksia varsinaisessa poliittisessa keskustelussa vaan ylläpitämässään blogissa, blogi ja hänen siinä käsittelemänsä aiheet ovat liittyneet hänen poliittiseen toimintaansa ja siinä esiin nostettuihin kysymyksiin. Tämä seikka on otettava huomioon punnittaessa sananvapauden ulottuvuutta ja sen rajoittamisen välttämättömyyttä esillä olevassa tapauksessa.

17. Ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on useassa yhteydessä todennut, että ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklan 2 kohta ei juurikaan antanut mahdollisuutta rajoittaa poliittista puhetta tai keskustelua yleisesti kiinnostavista kysymyksistä ja että poliittisen keskustelun vapautta voitiin rajoittaa vain pakottavin perustein. Ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on toisaalta korostanut sitä, että poliittisenkaan keskustelun vapaus ei ollut rajoittamaton ja että demokraattinen ja pluralistinen yhteiskunta perustui suvaitsevuuteen ja ihmisten tasa-arvoon. Sen vuoksi oikeasuhtaisia seuraamuksia saattoi olla tarpeen määrätä silloin, kun luotiin muun muassa uskonnolliseen suvaitsemattomuuteen perustuvaa vihaa tai siihen yllytettiin taikka sitä yritettiin perustella (esimerkiksi Müslüm Gündüz v. Turkki, 4.12.2003, kohdat 40 ja 41, Erbakan v. Turkki 6.7.2006 kohdat 55.iv ja 56, Karatepe v. Turkki 31.7.2007 kohta 25 ja Féret v. Belgia 16.7.2009 kohdat 63 ja 64). Kun kaiken suvaitsemattomuuden vastustaminen kuului olennaisena osana ihmisoikeuksien suojeluun, oli erittäin tärkeää, että poliitikot välttivät puheissaan lausumia, jotka saattoivat ruokkia suvaitsemattomuutta (Erbakan v. Turkki kohta 64).

18. Uskonnollisia kysymyksiä koskevan sananvapauden osalta ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisukäytännössä on todettu muun muassa, että uskonnonharjoittajien tuli suvaita ja hyväksyä se, että toiset torjuivat heidän uskonnolliset käsityksensä tai jopa levittivät heidän uskolleen vihamielisiä oppeja. Uskonnollisten mielipiteiden yhteydessä sananvapauden käyttämiseen liittyviin vastuisiin kuitenkin sisältyi velvollisuus mahdollisimman pitkälle välttää aiheettoman hyökkääviä ja siten toisten oikeuksia loukkaavia ilmaisuja, jotka eivät mitenkään edistäneet ihmisoikeuksista käytävää julkista keskustelua. Näin ollen saattoi olla välttämätöntä kieltää tai säätää rangaistaviksi uskonnollisen kunnioituksen kohteisiin kohdistuvat sopimattomat hyökkäykset edellyttäen kuitenkin, että toimenpiteet olivat suhteessa hyväksyttäviin päämääriin. Sananvapauden rajoitusten välttämättömyys tuli perustella vakuuttavasti (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Itävalta 20.9.1994 kohdat 47, 49 ja 50 sekä I.A. v. Turkki 13.9.2005 kohdat 24 - 28).

19. Korkein oikeus kiinnittää lisäksi huomiota siihen, että Euroopan neuvoston yleiskokous on vuonna 2006 antanut päätöslauselman ilmaisunvapaudesta ja uskonnollisten vakaumusten kunnioittamisesta (Resolution 1510(2006) Freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs) sekä vuonna 2007 suosituksen koskien jumalanpilkkaa, uskonnollisia loukkauksia ja vihanlietsontaa henkilöitä vastaan heidän uskonnollisen vakaumuksensa perusteella (Recommendation 1805(2007) Blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion). Päätöslauselma ja suositus kuvastavat pyrkimystä korostaa ilmaisunvapautta uskonnollisten aiheiden kriittisenkin käsittelyn yhteydessä ja ohjata kansallista lainsäädäntöä niin, että rangaistavaksi säädettäisiin lähinnä sellaiset uskonnollisiin aiheisiin liittyvät loukkaavat ilmaisut, jotka ovat rinnastettavissa uskonnollista ryhmää vastaan suunnattuun kiihottamiseen, väkivallan tai vihan lietsontaan taikka jotka vakavasti häiritsevät yleistä järjestystä.

20. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A:n tarkoituksena väitteet esittäessään on saattanut sinänsä osaltaan olla arvostella viranomaisten toimintaa eri uskontoihin liittyvissä sananvapauskysymyksissä. Niin kuin A:kin on todennut, uskonnosta ja sen opista on voitava käydä kriittistä keskustelua. Uskontoja ja niiden oppeja koskeva kärkevä, pisteliäs ja jopa loukkaavaksikin koettavissa oleva arvostelu on siten sananvapauteen kuuluvana oikeutena lähtökohtaisesti sallittua. Näin on asia varsinkin silloin, kun tällaista keskustelua käydään tai arvostelua esitetään yhteiskunnallisesti merkityksellisessä asiayhteydessä, kuten sananvapaudesta tai viranomaistoiminnasta käytävän asiallisen keskustelun yhteydessä. Niin kuin edellä viitatusta ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisukäytännöstäkin ilmenee, sananvapaus ei kuitenkaan ole edes tällöin rajoittamaton.

21. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että kysymyksessä olevat väitteet, joiden mukaan profeetta Muhammad oli pedofiili, islam pedofilian pyhittävä pedofiiliuskonto ja pedofilia Allahin tahto, ovat sekä sisällöltään että erityisesti ilmaisutavaltaan voimakkaan herjaavia ja häpäiseviä. Tämä ilmaisujen luonne on ilmeinen sellaisellekin, joille niiden kohteet eivät ole pyhiä. Kysymys ei siten ole ollut pelkästään uskonnon ja siihen liittyvien ilmiöiden asiallisesta arvostelusta kärjekkäitä, loukkaavia tai provosoivia ilmaisuja käyttäen, vaan sen laatuisesta herjaavasta hyökkäyksestä islamia ja sen pyhänä pitämiä kohtaan, jonka johdosta muslimit ovat voineet perustellusti tuntea joutuneensa oikeudettoman ja loukkaavan hyökkäyksen kohteeksi (I.A. v. Turkki 13.9.2005 kohta 29). Nykyislamiin ja sen pyhinä pitämiin uskonnollisen kunnioituksen kohteisiin kohdistuvien väitteiden herjaavuutta ei ole ollut omiaan vähentämään se A:n esiin nostama seikka, että kirjoituksessa on pyritty todistelemaan sanottujen väitteiden paikkansapitävyyttä viittaamalla profeetta Muhammadin elämästä koraanissa kerrottuun.

22. Korkein oikeus katsoo, että sanotun kaltaisten herjaavien väitteiden esittämiseen ei ole oikeuttanut A:n väittämä tarkoitus selvittää sananvapauden rajoja tai osoittaa viranomaistoiminnan epäjohdonmukaisuutta. Näihin kysymyksiin liittyvän, voimakkaankin arvostelun esittäminen olisi ollut mahdollista ilman islamin pyhänä pitämien arvojen häpäisemistä. Kyseessä olevan kaltaiset, koko uskontokunnan ja sen pyhät kunnioituksen kohteet voimakkaan kielteisesti leimaavat herjaavat iskulauseet eivät edistä uskonnoista tai yhteiskunnallisista kysymyksistä käytävää keskustelua, vaan ne ovat päinvastoin omiaan herättämään ja vahvistamaan uskonnollista suvaitsemattomuutta ja ennakkoluuloja. Näistä syistä sekä yleisen järjestyksen ja yhteiskuntarauhan säilyttämistavoitteen kannalta on perusteltua, että tällaisten väitteiden esittäjän sananvapauden suojaan puututaan rikosoikeudellisin seuraamuksin.

23. Kysymyksessä olevien lausumien sisältö ja esitystapa huomioon ottaen A on epäilyksittä käsittänyt niiden herjaavan ja häpäisevän luonteen. Myös A:n väittämä pyrkimys koetella sananvapauden rajoja ”heittämällä” syyttäjälle ”syötti” osaltaan osoittaa sen, että hän on mieltänyt esittämiensä väitteiden loukkaavan muslimien uskonnollisia tunteita tunnusmerkistön täyttävällä tavalla. Tietoiseen loukkaamistarkoitukseen viittaa sekin, että ilmaisut on esitetty kirjoituksessa kahdesti muusta tekstistä selvästi erottuvalla tekstityypillä. A on siten ne esittäessään toiminut rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:ssä tarkoitetussa loukkaamistarkoituksessa.

24. Korkein oikeus päätyy edellä mainituilla perusteilla siihen, ettei hovioikeuden tuomion lopputuloksen muuttamiseen ole uskonrauhan rikkomista koskevan syyksilukemisen osalta aihetta.

III Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan

III.1. Kansanryhmää vastaan kiihottamista koskeva rangaistussäännös ja sen tulkinnan lähtökohdat

25. Tekoaikana 3.6.2008 voimassa olleen rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:n (212/2008) mukaan kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan tuomitaan se, joka yleisön keskuuteen levittää lausuntoja tai muita tiedonantoja, joissa uhataan, panetellaan tai solvataan jotakin kansallista, etnistä, rodullista tai uskonnollista ryhmää taikka niihin rinnastettavaa muuta kansanryhmää. Säännös perustuu vuonna 1965 tehtyyn kaikkinaisen rotusyrjinnän poistamista koskevaan yleissopimukseen sekä vuonna 1966 hyväksyttyyn kansalaisoikeuksia ja poliittisia oikeuksia koskevaan kansainväliseen yleissopimukseen, jotka ovat tulleet Suomessa voimaan 1970-luvulla (HE 19/1970 vp s. 1 ja HE 94/1993 vp s. 32). Ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on hyväksynyt, että syrjinnän poistamista koskeva yleissopimus otetaan huomioon tulkittaessa ihmisoikeussopimuksen sananvapautta koskevaa 10 artiklaa (ks. Jersild v. Tanska, 23.9.1994, kohta 30).

26. Mainittua rangaistussäännöstä on sovellettava tässä asiassa, koska 1.6.2011 voimaan tulleen rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:n (511/2011) soveltaminen ei johda lievempään lopputulokseen. Sanotulla lainmuutoksella, jolla Suomen lainsäädäntö on saatettu vastaamaan Euroopan Unionin neuvoston rasismin ja muukalaisvihan tiettyjen muotojen ja ilmaisujen torjumiseksi rikosoikeudellisin keinoin annettua puitepäätöstä (2008/913/YOS) sekä Euroopan neuvoston jäsenmaiden 28.1.2003 tekemää Euroopan neuvoston tietoverkkorikollisuutta koskevan yleissopimuksen lisäpöytäkirjaa (ETS 189), on pyritty täsmentämään tässä asiassa sovellettavaksi tulevaa säännöstä.

27. Niin kuin myös voimassa olevaa säännöstä koskevissa esitöissä (HE 317/2010 vp s. 42) on todettu, tämänkin rangaistussäännöksen soveltamisessa ja rangaistavuuden rajaamisessa on tärkeää ottaa huomioon säännöksen suhde perustuslain ja Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen suojaamaan sananvapauteen. Viestintään ei saa puuttua enempää kuin on välttämätöntä ottaen huomioon sananvapauden merkitys kansanvaltaisessa oikeusvaltiossa. Niinpä esimerkiksi maahanmuutto- ja ulkomaalaispolitiikan tai siitä vastuussa olevien ankarakaan arvostelu ei sellaisenaan täytä rikoksen tunnusmerkistöä. Rangaistavaa kuitenkin on kansanryhmien uhkaaminen, solvaaminen tai panettelu.

III.2. A:n kirjoituksen sisältö

28. Kohdassa 1 mainitussa A:n blogikirjoituksessa on tältä osin todettu seuraavaa. ”Seuraava täky kuuluu: Ohikulkijoiden ryöstely ja verovaroilla loisiminen on somalien kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre.” Virke on esitetty vahvennetulla tekstityypillä ja alleviivattuna.

29. Kirjoituksessa on kysytty, onko edellä mainittu väite sopimaton, ja sen jälkeen todettu, että Julkisen Sanan Neuvostolle oli tehty kantelu Kaleva-lehden pääkirjoituksesta, jossa ”päissään tappamisen arveltiin olevan suomalaisten kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre”. Kirjoituksessa on todettu, että neuvosto ei ollut ottanut kantelua käsiteltäväkseen, ja siteerattu neuvoston sihteerin seuraava lausuma: ”Kirjoittaja viitannee selvityksiin, joissa humalajuominen on havaittu suomalaisen alkoholikulttuurin erityispiirteeksi. Myös humalan ja väkivallan välillä on todettu yhteyksiä. Ongelman geneettistä taustaa kirjoittaja ei käsittele faktana vaan esittää siitä oman arvelunsa.”

30. Kirjoituksessa on tämän jälkeen esitetty, että koska kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan on virallisen syytteen alainen rikos ja koska valtionsyyttäjä Illman ei ollut viran puolesta puuttunut Kalevan juttuun, voitaneen tehdä johtopäätös, että negatiivisia, kansallis-geneettisiä stereotypioita saa julkaista, kunhan niitä ei käsitellä faktana.

31. Kirjoituksessa on edelleen lausuttu, että kaikki somalit eivät tietenkään ryöstä tai loisi verovaroilla, mutta eivät toisaalta kaikki suomalaisetkaan tapa päissään. Tämän jälkeen kirjoituksessa on esitetty tilastotietoja somalien ryöstörikoksista ja työssä käymisestä sekä todettu, että ryöstely ja loisiminen ovat somalien lukumäärään suhteutettuina paljon tavallisempia ilmiöitä kuin humalassa tappaminen suomalaisten keskuudessa. Kirjoitus päättyy seuraavaan toteamukseen. ”Niinpä esitän uudelleen arvioni (jota en käsittele faktana): Ohikulkijoiden ryöstely ja verovaroilla loisiminen on somalien kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre.” Viimeksi mainittu virke on esitetty vahvennetulla tekstityypillä.

III.3. Syyte, A:n keskeiset perusteet syytteen kiistämiselle ja hovioikeuden tuomio

32. Syyte on tältä osin perustunut siihen, että A oli levittänyt yleisön keskuuteen lausunnon ja tiedonannon, joissa panetellaan ja solvataan somaleista koostuvaa kansallista tai siihen rinnastettavaa ryhmää esittämällä, että ryöstely ja verovaroilla loisiminen on somalien kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre. Syytteen mukaan lausuma sisältää asiallisesti väitteen, että kysymyksessä olevaan ryhmään kuuluvilla ihmisillä on ominaispiirre, joka ennalta määrätysti johtaa heidän kohdallaan yleiseen rikollisuuteen ja verovaroilla loisimiseen. Sanottu syrjivä ja vahvasti yleistävä väite on siten sanottua ihmisryhmää solvaava ja panetteleva, koska siinä kerrotuin tavoin kuvattiin kokonaiseen ihmisryhmään kuuluvat ihmiset rikollisina ja yhteiskunnan loisina ja muihin nähden ala-arvoisina. Syytteen mukaan lausunto loukkaa näiden ihmisten ihmisarvoa. Syyttäjä on katsonut väitteen niin sanotuksi vihapuheeksi, joka ei nauti sananvapauden suojaa.

33. A on katsonut, ettei teko ole ollut oikeudenvastainen ja rangaistava sen vuoksi, että väitteen esittämisessä on sen asiayhteys huomioon ottaen ollut kysymys Julkisen Sanan Neuvoston ja valtionsyyttäjän toiminnan sarkastisesta arvostelusta. Väitettä ei ollut esitetty kirjoituksessa tosiasiana, vaan tarkoituksena oli osoittaa, että eri etniset ryhmät nauttivat eriasteista suojaa ja olivat eriarvoisia lain edessä sen suhteen, miten näihin ryhmiin kohdistettuihin solvaaviin ja panetteleviin ilmauksiin suhtaudutaan ja reagoidaan muun muassa viranomaistoiminnassa.

34. Hovioikeus on hylännyt syytteen. Hovioikeus on katsonut, että A:n väite, joka oli sellaisenaan ollut somaleja panetteleva ja loukkaava, oli liittynyt välittömästi sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoitukseen sekä Julkisen Sanan Neuvoston ja syyttäjäviranomaisen ratkaisuihin kohdistuneeseen arvosteluun. Hovioikeuden mukaan A:n ilmeisenä pyrkimyksenä oli ollut osoittaa julkisuudessa suomalaisista esitetyn väitteen loukkaavuus rinnastamalla se suoraan toiseen kansanryhmään kohdistuvaan vastaavaan kärjekkääseen väitteeseen ja tällä tavoin kritisoida viranomaistoimintaa. Hovioikeus on katsonut, että kirjoituksessa oli tältä osin pysytty sallitun liioittelun ja provokaation rajoissa.

III.4. Korkeimman oikeuden arviointi

35. Arvioinnin lähtökohtien osalta Korkein oikeus viittaa siihen, mitä edellä kohdissa 16 ja 17 on todettu A:n kirjoituksen liittymisestä hänen poliittiseen toimintaansa ja ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen tulkinnoista sananvapauden rajoittamisesta tämän kaltaisissa yhteyksissä. Ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen käytännön perusteella voidaan päätellä, että rikosoikeudelliseen seuraamukseen tuomitseminen on tullut kysymykseen sananvapauden suojasta huolimatta lähinnä silloin, kun voidaan katsoa ihmis- ja perusoikeuksia loukatun vihaan tai väkivaltaan yllyttämisen muodossa. Vihapuheiden, jotka saattoivat loukata henkilöitä tai henkilöryhmiä, ei ole katsottu ansaitsevan sananvapauden suojaa (esimerkiksi Karatepe v. Turkki, 31.7.2007, kohta 25, Erbakan v. Turkki, 6.7.2006, kohdat 56 ja 57 ja Müslüm Gündüz v. Turkki, 4.12.2003, kohdat 40 ja 41).

36. Sananvapauden rajoja maahanmuuttoon liittyvässä poliittisessa kirjoittelussa koskee ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen ratkaisu asiassa Feret v. Belgia, 16.7.2009. Ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on katsonut, että kansallismielisen puolueen puheenjohtajan ja parlamentin jäsenen tuomitseminen kiihottamisrikoksesta vankeusrangaistukseen ja menettämään vaalikelpoisuutensa hänen maahanmuuttajiin kohdistamansa poliittisen arvostelun johdosta ei ollut rikkonut sananvapautta koskevaa ihmisoikeussopimuksen 10 artiklaa. Poliitikko oli kirjoituksillaan pitänyt maahan muuttaneita ulkomaalaisia rikollisina, jotka tulivat maahan käyttääkseen hyväkseen maahan asettumisestaan johtuneita etuuksia. Ratkaisun mukaan tällaiset puheet olivat omiaan herättämään yleisössä, varsinkin asioihin vähemmin perehtyneissä henkilöissä, halveksuntaa ja eräissä jopa vihaa ulkomaalaisia kohtaan. Rasistista syrjintää ja ulkomaalaisvihaa tuli vastustaa niiden kaikissa muodoissaan niin pitkälle kuin mahdollista ja silloinkin, kun puheella ei kehotettu ryhtymään mihinkään tiettyyn väkivaltaiseen tai muutoin rikolliseen tekoon. Ratkaisussa katsottiin, että valittajan asema parlamentaarikkona ei vähentänyt hänen vastuutaan ja että oli olennaisen tärkeää, että poliitikot välttivät julkisissa puheissaan ilmaisuja, jotka olivat omiaan herättämään ja ylläpitämään suvaitsemattomuutta. Käytetyt stereotyyppiset iskulauseet tai ilmaisut olivat omiaan saattamaan keskustelun järkevän väittelyn ulkopuolelle, mikä lisäsi rasististen puheiden haitallisia vaikutuksia.

37. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A:n kirjoituksessa esitetyssä väitteessä, jonka mukaan ohikulkijoiden ryöstely ja verovaroilla loisiminen on somalien kansallinen, ehkä suorastaan geneettinen erityispiirre, somalit kuvataan kansanryhmänä rikollisiksi ja yhteiskuntamoraaliltaan muihin nähden ala-arvoisiksi. Väite on siten somaleja kansanryhmänä panetteleva ja solvaava. Voimassa olevan rangaistussäännöksen perusteluissa (HE 317/2010 vp s. 42) tämän sisältöisten lausumien levittämistä on pidetty esimerkkinä rangaistavasta menettelystä.

38. A:n esittämien kiistämisperusteiden johdosta Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A:n tarkoituksena on saattanut sinänsä osaltaan olla esittää väittämäänsä kritiikkiä tiedotusvälineitä ja viranomaistoimintaa kohtaan. Korkein oikeus katsoo, että tällainen tarkoitus ei kuitenkaan ole oikeuttanut panettelemaan ja solvaamaan somaleita kansanryhmänä. Arvostelun esittäminen - sarkastisessakaan tyylilajissa - ei ole edellyttänyt somaleiden leimaamista rikollisiksi ja loisiksi. Sarkastiseksi kirjoituksessa on lähinnä ymmärrettävissä väitteeseen liitetty maininta siitä, että sitä ”ei käsitelty faktana”. Ainakin osa blogin lukijoita on myös voinut ymmärtää väitteen tosiasiassa tarkoitetun vakavasti otettavaksi varsinkin, kun väite on kirjoituksessa toistettu sen jälkeen, kun sen paikkansa pitävyyttä on pyritty tukemaan tilastotiedoin. A joka tapauksessa on epäilyksittä ymmärtänyt väitteensä panettelevan ja solvaavan luonteen, mitä osoittaa sekin, että tämäkin väite on kirjoituksen mukaan ollut ”täky” syyttäjälle. Teon tahallisuuden kannalta merkitystä ei ole sillä, onko A itse pitänyt väitettään totena.

39. Korkein oikeus katsoo, että kysymyksessä olevan kaltaiset panettelevat ja herjaavat lausumat ovat omiaan herättämään suvaitsemattomuutta, halveksuntaa ja mahdollisesti jopa vihaa niiden kohteena olevaa kansanryhmää kohtaan. Ne ovat siten ymmärrettävissä niin sanotun vihapuheen kaltaisiksi lausumiksi, jotka eivät nauti sananvapauden suojaa. Tällaisten lausumien esittäjään on perusteltua kohdistaa rikosoikeudellisia seuraamuksia.

40. Edellä mainituilla perusteilla Korkein oikeus katsoo A:n syyllistyneen siihen kiihottamiseen kansanryhmää vastaan, mistä hänelle on vaadittu rangaistusta.

Rangaistuksen määrääminen

41. A on syyllistynyt jo hovioikeuden hänen syykseen lukeman rikoslain 17 luvun 10 §:ssä tarkoitetun uskonrauhan rikkomisen lisäksi rikoslain 11 luvun 10 §:ssä tarkoitettuun kiihottamiseen kansanryhmää vastaan. Koska uskonrauhan rikkomisesta tuomittava rangaistus on sakkoa tai vankeutta enintään kuusi kuukautta ja kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan tuomittava rangaistus on sakkoa tai enintään kaksi vuotta vankeutta, yhteisen rangaistuksen mittaamisen lähtökohdaksi on rikoslain 7 luvun 5 §:n 2 momentin mukaan otettava viimeksi mainitusta rikoksesta tuomittava rangaistus. Syyttäjä on vaatinut, että A tuomitaan hänen syykseen luetuista rikoksista yhteiseen ehdolliseen vankeusrangaistukseen.

42. Rikoslain 6 luvun 3 §:n mukaan rangaistusta määrättäessä on otettava huomioon kaikki lain mukaan rangaistuksen määrään ja lajiin vaikuttavat perusteet sekä rangaistuskäytännön yhtenäisyys. Sanotun luvun 4 §:n mukaan rangaistus on mitattava niin, että se on oikeudenmukaisessa suhteessa rikoksen vahingollisuuteen ja vaarallisuuteen, teon vaikuttimiin sekä rikoksesta ilmenevään muuhun tekijän syyllisyyteen.

43. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A:n syyksi luettava kiihottamisrikos on tiettyyn kansanryhmään kuuluvien ihmisten ihmisarvoa loukkaavana luonteeltaan verraten vakava. Syyksi lukemisen perusteena oleva kirjoitus ei kuitenkaan ole sisältänyt kiihottamista väkivaltaan tai siihen rinnastettavaa uhkauksenomaista vihan lietsomista. Myös Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on ratkaisukäytännössään tuomitun rangaistusseuraamuksen oikeasuhtaisuutta arvioidessaan kiinnittänyt huomiota käytettyjen ilmaisujen laatuun ja luonteeseen (ks. esimerkiksi Kutlular v. Turkki, 29.4.2008, kohdat 49 - 52).

44. Korkein oikeus katsoo, että oikeansuhtaisena seuraamuksena A:n teoista on pidettävä sakkorangaistusta. A tuomitaan yhteiseen 50 päiväsakkoa vastaavaan sakkorangaistukseen. Päiväsakon rahamäärä on vahvistettu viimeksi toimitetun verotuksen mukaisten tietojen perusteella.

Verkkoviestin hävittämismääräys

45. Myös ne lausumat, joiden on edellä todettu täyttävän kiihottamisrikoksen tunnusmerkistön, on määrättävä sananvapauden käyttämisestä joukkoviestinnässä annetun lain 22 §:n 3 momentin nojalla poistettavaksi yleisön saatavilta ja hävitettäväksi.

Hovioikeuden tuomiota muutetaan. A:n syyksi luetaan kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan (tekoaika 3.6.2008). Tästä ja hänen syykseen luetusta uskonrauhan rikkomisesta A tuomitaan yhteiseen 50 päiväsakon sakkorangaistukseen.

A:n 3.6.2008 internetissä osoitteessa julkaisemasta kirjoituksesta ”Muutama täky Illmanin Mikalle” määrätään poistettavaksi yleisön saatavilta ja hävitettäväksi sen 19. ja 25., sanalla ”Ohikulkijoiden” alkava kappale.

Muilta osin hovioikeuden tuomio jää pysyväksi.

Asian ovat ratkaisseet oikeusneuvokset Kari Raulos, Pasi Aarnio, Hannu Rajalahti, Soile Poutiainen ja Jukka Sippo. Esittelijä Jukka-Pekka Salonen.

Muslim taqiyya and kitman lying against non-muslims (infidels)

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman.  These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..."  The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.  They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"  The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."  The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit.  If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'"  The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."  Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."

Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."

Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence.  The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad.  This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) -  "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.  When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...

"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

Additional Notes:

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them.  The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission.  An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover.  The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace.  This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war).  Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace.  Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe.  The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this.  When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise.  However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance.  (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions.  Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims.  From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic.  Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad.  This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met."  Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization."  In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas.  At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty.  In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest.  When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well).  Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.