Peter Klevius warns EU not to support US space militarism monopoly*

* Why should the US be allowed to declare military ownership of the space surrounding our Earth?

 Super religious US could easily turn into a Saudi styled islamist theocracy under a future muslim leader.

Unlike EU, US lacks a defense against Human Rights violations - i.e. against islam.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed but not approved amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. It seeks to end the legal distinctions between men and women.


US sharia vulnerabilities:

1. US still lacks full Human Rights equality for women, which fact leaves an open gate for islamic sharia.

2. Unlike US, EU has its own Human Rights body, the European Court of Human Rights. And unlike the Saudi based and steered OIC's "islamic human rights" (sharia), EU's are copied from the original anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration. Human Rights* standards do not become enforceable in the United States unless and until they are implemented through local, state, and/or federal law. International courts and monitoring bodies hence lack the ability to enforce Human Rights in the US.

* Human Rights, the most sacred thing we have as humans, ought to be spelled with capital. It's appalling to see an evil ideology such as islam which doens't accept the most basic of Human Rights, is spelled with capital while the latter is not.

3 US can't keep up with Chinese technology. The same happened with Japan but because of US bigger size and extensive license imperialism it forced Japan to adapt (computing, military cooperation, moving Japanes companies in US etc.). However, China's potential is more than ten times bigger than that of Japan. So if US chooses to see China as an enemy instead of a partner, then the road is open for a cultural conflict where religion is used as an excuse against China. And for that purpose the muslim religion is comes politically handy.

The US isn't necessarily the "defender of the free world" anymore.

The U.S. Supreme Court consists of three Jews, one Protestant-Catholic, and five Catholics. Not a single Atheist although there are equally many (and rapidly growing) Atheists (i.e. without religion) as there are Catholics, and only one (or a half?) Protestant although half of the US population call themselves Protestants (but most of them non-believing crypto-Atheists). However, the likelihood for an Atheist Supreme Court justice still seems slim. Why?

Greta should know about this halal feast but unfortunately the pic is too graphic for a child.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Klevius Human Rights tutorial for ignorant muslims and their supporters

The evilness of islam explained in simple English

There are no Human Rights in islam - only islamic "human rights" (Sharia)

Because islamofascists and their supporters lack any credible argument in favor of islam, but 1,400 years of historical evidence* for the very opposite, they have to use the lowest of means to blur the picture of the evil medieval slave Leviathan. So, for example, are those who dare to criticize this pure evilness

* Not to mention the extremely obscure origin of islam. According to Britain's (and the world's - after Klevius) foremost islam researcher when it comes to its extremely violent early stages, Hugh Kennedy, "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever".

The main reason that Klevius considers himself the world's foremost expert on the origin of islam is that he (sadly) still happens to be the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid, i.e. what constitutes the basis for rapetivism and islam's survival (and which is the main reason OIC abandoned Human Rights in UN and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).


Only truly pious (so called "extremist") muslims are truly evil. However, all non-extremist (secularized) "muslims" aren't necessarily good either if they knowingly use the evilness of islam for their own satisfaction. Only ignorant "muslims" can be excused.

While contemplating the pic below, do consider the inevitable fact that islam (in any meaningful form) doesn't approve of our most basic universal Human Rights! That's the main pillar of the problem, dude!

So those muslims who don't fit in either category need to face Erdogan, OIC and Human Rights violating Sharia - or admit they are no real muslims.

Klevius comment: I for one cannot see the slightest space for political islam in a democratic society based on the belief in Human Rights. Can you?

Introduction

What is religion?

First of all, being religious is an exception. The average world citizen doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian/islamic "god"*. And the reason we hear so much about "religion" is the same as after 9/11, namely its bad consequences.

* The belief in a "creator" presumes a "creation". Or, in other words, the creation of a "creator" necessitates "creation". However, outside "monotheistic" mythology, the most common view is and has always been, as pointed out by Klevius (1992) that there has always been something from which later shapes emerge (just like Eve emerged out of Adam). However, the main point of "monotheisms" has from scratch been racism and sexism, i.e. in opposition to the enlightened view of every human's equal right no matter of sex etc., (just as we have it in traffic).  

Based on historical and contemporary evidence, religion - if with this word we mean Judaism (the chosen people) and its branch Christianity and its tail branch islam - is  certainly not " community cohesion" but rather "community confusion" when mirrored against the main idea of Human Rights.

There are three main reasons for people to become religious:

1  They are born into a religion, and if they are muslims it's considered the gravest of crimes (apostasy) to leave islam.

2   A religious person feels a need to defend actions s/he cannot logically approve of without the aid of a "god".

3   A religious person feels a need for forgiveness, and due to the above (2) an other human won't do because s/he might use logic. "God", however, can always be excused by arguing that no human can understand "god's" decisions/actions.

From a sociological point of view the reason why the above (2) problem even arises in the first place is because of a lack of continuous updating of crucial and basic relations. This in turn happens when families etc. are scattered in time and space due to work, school, separate activities etc. and when the lack of updating causes misunderstandings/opportunities that are misused for personal gains.

Adding to religious confusion is its deliberate sex apartheid which also stays in direct opposition to the Human Rights view that one's sex ought not to be used as an excuse for altering or denying rights.

However, by sticking to honest logic and a Human Rights philosophy (equality) all of this can easily be avoided.

Life´s a passionate faith in a project of uncertainty whereas e.g. Islam is godless (Koran is "god's" words and the final reporter is dead) misuse of power and life denial. Arbitrarily giving away parts of your life to a "god" outside the world is partial suicide (and in Islam's case also feeds earthly totalitarianism/fascism/racism/sexism)! (for more read Klevius definition of religion)

Is she Sharia compliant?

If she is Sharia compliant then she lacks Human Rights precisely based on the same logic that made OIC introduce the so called 'Cairo declaration on human rights in islam' (Sharia) which now, via UN, constitutes the framework for everyone wanting to call him/herself a muslim and, as a consequence, a Human Rightsophobe.

Turkish Human Rightsophobic conference wants to discuss how to censor media and make criticism of islam a crime all over the world

This fanatic* muslim and his muslim world organization (OIC) is the most dangerous threat to Human Rights

 * who dreams about a Turk led muslim world empire under Sharia, just as Hitler dreamed about a Grossdeutschland. And who blinks the miserable failures of the Turk led Ottoman slave empire which fell in the deepest decay after West had abolished slavery for good.

Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the Egyptian born Turkish Fuhrer of OIC (based in Saudi Arabia) will make the opening speeches of the “International Conference on Islamophobia: Law and Media” to take place in Istanbul on Sept. 12 and 13, along with Directory General of Directorate General of Press and Information Murat Karakaya and Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç. Other islamofascism supporting Human Rightsophobic speakers include John L. Esposito, Norman Gary Finkelstein, Marwan Mohammed, Nathan Lean, Saied Reza Ameli, Halim Rane, Stephen Sheehi and Ibrahim Salama.

Klevius clarifying comment: Recent internal Turkish criticism against Ihsanoglu is due to the split between Ottomans and Arabs. Ihsanoglu is half Arab and loyal to the Saudis who wanted Muslim Brotherhood erased. That's why he kept silent when the Egyptian army killed the brothers.

Common Misconception about Basic Human Rights and islam/Sharia

It seems that no matter what the ideology of islam causes, it's never islam if the consequences are unwanted (Klevius 2001).

Islam sneaked in on an oiled post-colonialist commerce sold to the public as a combination of “guilt”, ”compassion” and negative “white middle age man”* rhetoric. Of course

* The concept of the “white middle age man” has always been popular, not only among feminists, young “revolutionaries” and “colored middle age men”, but also among the “white middle age men” themselves because by criticizing the “white middle age man” one lifts oneself above one's own category, much like “true muslims” do compared to “secularized muslims” (or vise versa).

OIC's Cairo declaration and Egypt's constitution

Zaid Al-Ali is a senior advisor on constitution building at International IDEA: The proposed changes (of Egypt's constitution) will not have any impact in the immediate term on the way in which Egyptians live their lives, but they remove a tool that hard-line Islamists might have tried to use in the future to impose a harsher vision of society. It is worth noting however that the technical committee maintained article 2, which imposes the principles of Islamic sharia as the main source of legislation in the country. It also kept the distinction that was first introduced in 2012 between "heavenly religions" (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) and the rest, whose right to practice rituals is curbed. The technical committee also proposed to reestablish the ban on religious parties, but also indicated that political parties cannot "undermine public order," an incredibly vague term that is subject to abuse (article 54).

In terms of women's rights, the 1971 and the 2012 constitutions were both not particularly generous. They both included vague references to morality, to traditional family values, and to women's "obligations towards family and society." The technical committee, which was dominated by men, has essentially maintained the same wording and the same principles in relation to this issue. Women are therefore equal to men within the limits of Islamic sharia, the state is still responsible for protecting the "original values of Egyptian families" (article 10), and the state will also still provide assistance to women to satisfy their "obligations towards family and society" (article 11). This is precisely the wording that caused so many liberals to denounce the Muslim Brotherhood-led process in 2012.

Peter Klevius: "The state will provide assistance to women to satisfy their obligations towards family and society" (article 11 Egypt const.). Ugly sexism wrapped in nice wording.

Women are equal to men ONLY “within the limits of Islamic sharia” because they have "obligations towards family and society" (article 11 Egypt const.).

"Heavenly religions"* (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) and the rest (article 2 Egypt const.). A triple stage racism similar to when black supremacist racists in Nation of islam divide the world in the good blacks, the inferior non-blacks, and the evil whites.

* However, apart from the racist fact that people who don't want to belong to the "heavenly religions" are deemed less worthy, among the "heavenly religions" islam is always the “only true religion” because the other "heavenly religions" have got it all wrong. This fact must certainly be connected to the problems Jews and Christians continuously face in muslim countries and even elsewhere - compare e.g. the horrifying case of Malmö in Sweden. The Swedish newspaper Skånska Dagbladet reported that attacks on Jews in Malmo totaled 79 in 2009, about twice as many as the previous year, according to police statistics. In March 2010, Fredrik Sieradzk of the Jewish community of Malmö told Die Presse, an Austrian Internet publication, that Jews are being "harassed and physically attacked" by "people from the Middle East. In December 2010, the Jewish human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a travel advisory concerning Sweden, advising Jews to express "extreme caution" when visiting the southern parts of the country due to an increase in verbal and physical harassment of Jewish citizens in the city of Malmö. And so on. See more on Wikipedia and do note the usual "only a small number of muslims are jihadists" but never "an even much smaller proportion of Swedes are Nazis". Moreover, all Swedes are Swedes whereas all muslims aren't necessarily pious muslims at all, which fact alters the proportionality even more.

Whereas Human Rights allow you to lead your life as you wish without necessitating others to do so, Sharia does the opposite

So why do you suffer from such a grave form of Human Rightsophobia? Why do you want all other women to be restricted just because you yourself want to be restricted?! What disturbs you so much that you want to impose your way of life on others - or, alternatively, in a racist manner despise them?

ARTICLE 6 in OIC's Cairo declaration:
 

(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.

(b) The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.

ARTICLE 7:
(a) As of the moment of birth, every child has rights due from the parents, society and the state to be accorded proper nursing, education and material, hygienic and moral care. Both the fetus and the mother must be protected and accorded special care.

(b) Parents and those in such like capacity have the right to choose the type of education they desire for their children, provided they take into consideration the interest and future of the children in accordance with ethical values and the principles of the Shari'ah

ARTICLE 22 in OIC's Cairo declaration:
 

(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.

(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah

(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

Two too common islamofascist statements supported by Saudi based OIC (all muslims world organization) and its Sharia declaration (also called Cairo declaration on human rights in islam):

1 The modern democracies of today have not yet attained what the Faith of Islam ordained fourteen and half centuries ago.

Peter Klevius: Very pleased to hear that. And I truly hope they never will.

2 Islam allows complete freedom of though and expression, provided that it does not involve spreading that which is harmful to individuals and the society at large. For example, the use of abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism is not allowed.

Peter Klevius: Criticism of islam is, according to OIC's Sharia, ALWAYS abusive and offensive no matter how it's worded!

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig's (a supporter of islamofascist Sharia) presentation of islamic "human rights" (i.e. Sharia) offers a wonderful opportunity for Peter Klevius to really point out how islam (Sharia) is diametrically opposite the real Human Rights (also called Negative Human Rights because of its lack of positive impositions in basic rights):

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Though the influence of political motives, rivalries, and deliberations has made complicated the correct formulation of this problem, but this should not prevent thinkers and genuine humanists from snooping into this problem and ultimately obtaining a solution (Klevius: Yes, I do!). In the West, it is only since the last two hundred years or so that human right became a subject of eminence among the political and social issues of Western society and an issue of fundamental significance.

Peter Klevius: Please Mirza, you can't be that stupid! You're as far you can get from the truth (perhaps not too surprising considering you're trying to defend the biggest lie in the history of the world). The process started long before islam even existed and eventually developed into the 1948 Human Rights Declaration which rests on an unbeatable logic that islam has never been even close to. On the contrary, islam and its Sharia (in whatever form) always restricts basic (negative*) Human Rights via (positive*) islamic impositions.

* Whereas positive rights oblige or open up for action/imposition, negative rights oblige inaction. If you don't threaten the rights of others (as muslims do if they follow Sharia) you shouldn't be bothered. Just as you shouldn't be bothered by the police unless an offense against the law is suspected.

Negative rights include freedom of speech and expression, freedom from violent crime, freedom of belief (as long it doesn't affect Human Rights of others), habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery etc.

The right to private property has no direct (only indirect – the right not to be robbed of one's property) connection with negative Human Rights.

A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person, religious group, a government etc.

Moreover, this also includes legislators, i.e. that a law that contradicts Human Rights cannot be considered lawful.

And for those who try to circumvent the logic of negative Human Rights by referring to enforcement or laws, you don't understand that Human Rights are not laws but the very basis for legislation.

How far the law can restrict Human Rights is a matter between us humans but balanced by the underpinning idea of negative Human Rights in much the same way as traffic rules are tailored for the actual reality – not any specific ideology. Traffic rules should be as smooth and democratic as possible for the purpose of flow, safety etc. just as laws should be as little intrusive on freedom as possible.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: During the last few decades this prominence reached its peak in the West with the formation of UN after the Second World War and the subsequent drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but we Muslims know it very well that if the Western World and the Western civilization have paid attention to this matter in the recent centuries, Islam has dealt with it from all the various aspects of Human Rights many centuries back.

Peter Klevius: Is a slave an equal? And is a muslim woman equal to muslim man as according to Human Rights? Apart from paillaging, islam has sponged on slaves and women for 1400 years!

Moreover, islam is an Arabic religion and Arabic islam is considered superior to islam experienced via other languages. On top of that you have the Sunnia Shia divide - not to mention all other branches considered inferior or blasphemous by other muslims.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The first thing that we find in Islam in the correlation of basic human rights is that it lays down some rights for man as a human being. In other words, it means that every man whether he belongs to Muslim state or not, whether he is a believer or unbeliever, whether he lives in some forest or is found in some desert, whatever be the case, he has some basic human rights just because he is a human being, which should be recognized by every Muslim.

Peter Klevius: Well, that doesn't make any sense at all, does it. Either you mean he (what about she) has to comply (as a Dhimmi) with Sharia or he is a blasphemous infidel.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Security of Life and Property:

The first and the foremost basic right is the right to live and respect for human life. The Holy Quran says: “Whosoever kills a human being (without any reason) manslaughter, or corruption on earth, it is though he had killed all mankind”.

Peter Klevius: Why did you put the most important part "without any reason" within brackets? Not complying with Sharia, or perhaps not being a true muslim, or being an infidel standing in the way for islam, or just an infidel who happens to have the wrong passport, belief etc. may be such a reason. Not to mention the reason the 9/11 muslim terrorists had to murder innocent people in the US just because they felt islam was under attack from the West.

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Protection of Honor:

The Quran does not allow one’s personal honor to be abused: “O you, who believe, do not let one set of people make fun of other set. Do not defame one another. Do not insult by using nicknames. Do not backbite”

Peter Klevius: No wonder muslims are over sensitive - not the least towards each others. Just check the news!

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Right to Protest against Tyranny:

This is mentioned clearly in the Quran: “God does not love evil talk in public unless it is by someone who has been injured thereby”. This was acknowledged by Abu Bakr, who said in his very first address: “Cooperate with me when I am right, and correct me when I commit error. Obey me as long as I follow the commandments of Allah and His Prophet, but turn away from me when I deviate”.

Peter Klevius: Indeed, reminds me of the "Arab spring" and all those muslims who fight all those muslims who have "deviated".

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Freedom of Expression:

Allah gave Adam liberty of free choice between right and wrong. It is the same reference that Allah almighty says in Quran: “Then He showed him what is wrong for him and what is right for him”. Islam allows complete freedom of though and expression, provided that it does not involve spreading that which is harmful to individuals and the society at large. For example, the use of abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism is not allowed.

Peter Klevius: So how could criticism against islam under Sharia not be "abusive"?!

Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Equality before the Law:

Islam gives it citizens the right to absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law. According to Islamic concept of justice, absolutely no one is above the law. This point was made in a very dramatic fashion by the Prophet himself. One day, a women belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in connection with a theft. The case was brought to the Prophet with the recommendation that she be spare the mandated punishment for theft (amputation of the hand). The Prophet replied: “The nations that lived before you were destroyed by God because they punished the common man for their offenses and let their dignitaries go unpunished for their crimes. I swear by Him Who hold my life in His had that even if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, had committed this crime, I would have amputated her hand.”

Peter Klevius: These fairy tales are laughable, not only because they are without any historical connection (not even mentioned in the Koran), but, more importantly, because women are not even close to equality with men in before the Law (Sharia). Moreover and again, "before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."

Peter Klevius: The modern democracies may rightly argue that the world is indebted to them for establishing the equality and freedom. These countries could take the credit for introducing Human Rights and abolishing slavery (which is still sanctioned in islam) and abolishing judicial discrimination of women (except for in the US*). However, instead it seems that these countries try to do their utmost to downplay these important achievements, and instead they are supporting the very opposite.

* The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982, and so it was not adopted. However, most people are unaware of this important deficiency in the US legislation compared to Human Rihghts.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

In Peter Klevius Yule* sex tutorial Geri Jewell reveals that "the denial was that the passion David had sexually I couldn't equal", and Michelle Thomson that when her friend raped her "it wasn't sexual".

* Yule is old Swedish (spelled 'jul') meaning wheel (which comes from the same word 'hjul') of the year, i.e. Vinter solstice around 21 December, and in modern times "Christmas" celebration although it has nothing to do with religion.

Klevius: All women are gay*. However, not every woman has realized it as yet...

Women, from a male point of view, have wonderful assess - just like feamale dogs from a male dog's perspective. And not only that, women have the potential to reproduce. And when women are receptive there are usually no lack of providers. So women should really not have anything to complain about in this respect. Other than, of course sex segregation/apartheid.

The sperm has to be attracted to the egg in some way. That's biological 'heterosexual attraction'. Testosterone is an important hormone in this task. However, the measurements are not easily compared between men and women because labs tend to (why?!) state the percentage of free testosterone for men, but give a measurement in pg/ml for women. Or the male measurements will be in ng/dl requiring a mathematical conversion for direct comparison to the "normal" range of the opposite sex. The level readings between men and women are so vastly different because the number represents a percentage of the TOTAL testosterone. Women naturally start with a much lower total amount, so 2.5% of 40ng/dl is going to be much less than 2.5% of 800ng/dl in a man.

However, even 20 times more Testosterone doesn't mean a man is necessitated to sex - merely that he is always potentially ready for sex (at least Klevius - the "extremely normal" - is and has always been since his adolescence). In other words, Klevius proposes that we lay to rest the old imposing "dog sex" culture and instead all treat each other as humans, not as sexual beings. However, to achieve this we need to teach young girls (and boys) about the only real difference between the sexes, namely heterosexual attraction, so it won't be confused with sexual acts (which people should of course be allowed to perform without any other restrictions than what the law says added with full and informed consent - just like most other civilized behavior. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, we need to end the mostly male "push for sex" culture, i.e. dog behavior. Asexuality should be the default state of interaction.

And to avoid unnecessary confusion re. Klevius sex analysis, do understand that unlike physical reproduction in the female body (which is completely independent from the male one), heterosexual attraction needs both sexes although the female one is in this respect the passive one. At this point someone (especially women) might have problem reconciling this with the fact that many women do enjoy sexual acts without possessing the male type gaze for HSA. Klevius then repeats that although all women are gay, not all women do or enjoy sex, which fact should be respected equally as respecting that Klevius has never needed drugs or alcohol for being happy or having good sex, nor has he ever deliberately thrown white pepper around just for the pleasure of sneezing (rest calm, Klevius won't ever criticize you if you do).

And you, if you think this analysis is just Klevius opinion then you haven't understood it at all - read and think again. It's the same logic as 2+2=4.

1 HSA isn't sexual acts per se but a biologically inplanted interest for being attracted to having sex with females. Whereas dogs seem to be more excited by the smell of a female dog's pheromones, human males seem to be more interested in the shape of the female body. In fact, analytically there's no difference between gay sex and hetero sex if HSA isn't a factor (however, it would be enough to term it HSA sex if the male at least think about a physical woman - compare e.g. heterosexual men unknowingly being attracted to males disguised as women).

2 Males have way more potential urge for sex than women because of some 20 times more testosterone. And please, don't confuse this with what Klevius calls "rubbing sex", i.e. just stimulation of the genitals without HSA (compare the case of white pepper and sneezing).  

3  Being pregnant and having a baby has nothing to do with sex segregation at all because it's entirely a woman affair.

4 This means that all women, incl. asexual and achild ones ought to be treated equal with males. And as a consequence, this analysis also benefits men who want to get rid of their macho masculinity label as well as those who unnecessarily feel they're lacking one.
 


Peter Klevius drawing 'Woman' from 1979:

 Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really limited understanding (i.e. PC), do note that the DNA "ladder" has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as escaping).

Whereas classic sex segregation (read more Klevius to better understand the concept) is imposed by circumstances, religious/cultural sex segregation is what is imposed on girls/women even when it's no longer necessary. In the latter case women have been held back by men to an extent where incompetency outside "women's sphere" increasingly became obvious. As a consequence grown up women started internalizing this incompetency as "femininity" although the only true femininity is defined by heterosexual attraction (read Klevius because you'll find nothing anywhere else so far - sad isn't it).

Peter Klevius 1979 poem 'My Friend':

Ett synintryck
en beröring
ord som diffusa budbärare
speglar en glimt av din tanke
i chifferform redan förvrängda
förrän de blivit sagda
av mig och din förväntan
min vän

A rough translation for those poor uneducated individuals lacking Swedish, the origin of the English language (oh, perhaps you were unaware of English being a Scandinavian* language - my deepest condolences):

* The oldest Swedish is Old Nordic. To call it "old Norse" wrongly associates it with Norway and Norwegian, both of which weren't around as entities until after the Viking age. As Klevius has always said: North Germanic, and probably Germanic per se, was a late IE outcome between proto-Uralic and PIE (i.e. what Klevius use to call "old Finland-Swedish").

A perception             (see/se, track/tryck, i.e. see-in-track/synintryck)
a touch
words as diffuse messengers              (words/ord, bid-bearers/budbärare)
mirror a glimpse of your thought       (think/ing, tank/e)
in cipher form already distorted        (fore wronged/förvrängd/a)
before they've been said                     (sagda)
by me and your expectation               (fore waiting/förväntan)
my friend                                            (  min frände, min vän)

Women on sex and work

Geri Jewell (top left), Nicola Sturgeon and Michelle Thomson (below). Nicola Sturgeon says she would not have suffered her career for a child. Michelle Thomson says she didn't think her rapist (a teenage friend) had any sexual desire when he raped her a night when she was 14 and they walked home together. This she told in front of a tear filled UK Parliament (she has also recently been questioned in a pending mortgage fraud case). However, Klevius doesn't believe in rape without sexual desire - what was lacking was respect for basic Human Rights equality, i.e. that her friend had been brainwashed by sex segregation to an extent that he saw her only as an object for heterosexual attraction, not as an other human being on an equal footing.

Actress and comedian Geri Jewell, who has cerebral palsy (witch has not affected her intelligence - only motorics), reveals in a new memoir, I’m Walking As Straight As I Can (alluding to her a-heterosexuality as well as her motoric disability) how much she struggled growing up with a disability and how she wrestled with her "sexuality" (or rather lack of it), and reveals she is a "lesbian", which is a code word for not possessing male heterosexual attraction genes nor same level of testosterone.

Geri Jewell was the first disabled actor to take a lead role in a sitcom and she's gone on to challenge ideas about what is possible. She describes the pressures on her to go into a job suited to her disability and what made her rebel against such restricting expectations

Peter Klevius: Her rebellion against such restricting expectations as created by cultural sex segregation is just stunning - although her escape under an equally sex segregated cover ("lesbian", "gay" etc.) is not. Why didn't she claim her Human Rights as described in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration against fascism, which gives her the right to lead her life as she wishes without having to "explain" it. Or is it because she is an American, and the US Constitution still doesn't give women full equality with men - hence necessitating labels?

US women fighting in vain for equality some 70 years after Finnish women got full equality.


Klevius wrote:

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Islam, OIC - and Eurabia

Europe's fascist past reborn via religion

As long as fascism is called good - how could we ever stop it? But Klevius, as a critical European ("islamophobe" if you like) feels extremely embarrassed in front of those true refugees escaping islam and hoping for protection under Western Human Rights. Sorry!

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Klevius (the world's foremost authority on sex apartheid - sad isn't it) to all the world's women on women's day: Here's your main enemy exemplified as a timid "mosque mouse"!

Sharia islam is never good for your Human Rights if you are a woman. But willing whores and deceptive but off the point talks may well lure many women still.

 But the more important question is: Can you as a woman face your own sex apartheid history fully?

Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really limited understanding (i.e. PC), do note that the DNA "ladder" has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as escaping).

Update: Learn more about heterosexual attraction and sex segregation/apartheid here.

The origin of islam was plundering and raping booty jihad along Jewish slave trade routes. 

 Here's an approximate map of Judaism just before the origin of islam.

And below an approximate map of the violent muslim colonization in the foot steps of the Jewish slave trade routes.

 The above maps could be almost identical if produced with same techniques. This is no coincident but due to the "mysterious" code (the Jews) that made Arab imperialism possible and historical analysis impossible ("mysterious") if not included.  

Except for Khazaria, Jews were more business orientated than eager to waive swords compared to their copycats the Arab Bedouins. However, without wealthy and influential Jews leading the bloodthirsty and illiterate Bedouins (compare Ibn-Khaldun's description) and paving the way for the Arab looters (compare how the Jews used Turkic people in Khazaria in pretty much the same manner) the "Arab conquest" would have quickly dried out in the Arabian sand.

Dear reader. When reading Klevius analysis of the origin of islam, do always keep in mind the following important facts:

1 There was no Koran - only some Jewish/Christian text manipulations.

2  There was no Muhammad - only the old Jewish Messias (the rescuer/saver/leader) myth. Muhammad as described by muslims is a later invention snd doesn't appear in any official documents whatsoever before Malik.

3  Conventional "descriptions" of the "Arab conquest" are impossible and leave historians "amazed". Instead looting, booty, and sex slaves were the main incentives for the Bedouins. What was new was a more tight racist system of "we-and-the-other" which hindered (for a time) hindered internal divisions. On top of this was the Dhimmitude taxation system under the sword.

4 Understanding these point is also understanding that islam originated as a parasite and therefore never functioned as inspiration in itself for innovations etc. This is why every islamic colony has ended in bachwardness. Africa is an example of how a parasitic ideology was able to drain a whole continent.


Klevius will tell you much more later. Keep tuned and excited!

A little, timidly nonsense speaking Swedish "reformist" Shia muslim "professor"* who rides on the non-muslim world's longing for "nice muslims".

* Klevius uses 'professor' only re. scientific researchers. Mixing in a "god" isn't science.

Whereas few women believe in the Islamic State, some morons still believe in the oxymoron "reformed islam". To understand the impossibility of a civilized islam one only has to go to its evil origin (as Klevius has done since 9/11). And if you for some strange reason don't want to listen to the world's foremost expert on sex apartheid - and therefore also islam -just take a closer lookj to what BBC and others don't want to talk about.

And you may laugh this Saudi billionaire hoodlum away as a Saudi joke but then you miss the very point, namely that:

1 OIC's sharia includes both the Saudi sharia as well as any other sharia that fulfills the lofty definition of the Cairo declaration.

2 The main reason (except for protecting the Saudi and other muslim nations medieval systems) for OIC's sharia declaration was that the 1948 Universal* Human Rights Declaration gives women full equality with men, which fact made it impossible for islam in whatever sharia form.

* There's a dumb view presented for even dumber people that the UN declaration was "Western made" and therefore biased. Nothing could be more wrong. The paper and the pen may have been "Western made" but the content is from scratch made deliberately "non-Western" i.e. universal. Educate yourself!

Unlike many other forms of sexism, muslim sexism is pure racism: Muslim women in every single variant of possible sharia islam are always treated as "the other".


A Shia muslim that is on the extreme fringe of Shia muslims and not even considered a muslim by the majority of the world's Sunni muslims, incl, most muslim so called "scholars".


A pathetic and disgusting Human Rights denier who "accuses" basic and universal Human Rights for being bad "because they came out of the West". Ok, cars etc. also came out of the West and yes, he could blame them for some pollution etc. and call it "post-colonialism". But how on earth could you possibly deny the logic of the negative (basic) Human Rights, or deny them because they "came out of the West". Well the reason "they came out of the West" is that the islam contaminated parts of the world didn't give them a chance to come out there.


So is he an outright lier trying to camouflage islam's incompatibility with the most basic of Human Rights- or is he, like so many muslims, incredibly dumb/ignorant/brainwashed?

Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and filosophy (sic)* at Uppsala University in Sweden: There are some essential norms in the Koran that can be used to protect human dignity in different ways depending on time and cisrumstances.

* As Wittgenstein already pointed out, philosophy is a difficult discipline even without trying to squeeze in a God scheme in it. And even more so when the "God" is totally out of reach and only exists as differing human "interpretations".


Klevius: "Protecting" women from having access to full Human Rights? And "human dignity" should be read "muslim male dignity" added by the important "who is interpreted as being a true muslim" which could, as we all know, vary quite a lot among muslims. Moreover, what about the dignity of non-muslims? Either you let muslims "interpret" it or you skip islam alltogether, because here lies the real difference between Human Rights that gives every Atheist or whatever person (even muslims) equal rights, and sharia islam which openly violates these rights, as can be seen, for example, in Saudi based and steered OIC's (all muslim's main world organization) official abandoning of Human Rights in UN. Mohammad Fazlhashemi, professor in islamism (aka "islamic theology") and racist/sexist "muslimn filosophy" can't possibly be unaware of OIC, the muslim world's biggest and most important institution, can he!

Mohammad Fazlhashemi: That islam is good can be proved by comparing it to the illiterate Arab speaking bedouins.

Klevius: Is that really a good enough standard as reference?

Mohammad Fazlhashemi: There's no logical connection between a muslim's belief and a muslim's rights.

Klevius: Apart from the fact that most muslims completely disagree with you, why do you then keep asking for muslim's rights? Why should muslim's have special rights because of their "beliefs"?


And here's this small minded muslim reformist's Shia source:

Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari: I do not call for a separation of politics and religion. Of course there should be cooperation between them.

Klevius: Cooperation between Human Rights violating sharia and politicians representing Human Rights doesn't sound very reformist, does it.

From an interview with Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari (spiced with Klevius comments): The way of life in Medina and Mecca was quite simple. But what took place then cannot be a model for today's world. Nowadays, Muslims live in intelligent social systems, in which there is a wide diversity of institutions. This requires us to develop a proper plan with the aid of reason. This is not something that can be derived from the Koran.

Klevius: At least he seems to admit that the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina wasn't a good "model". Or did he mean something else? The muslim booty and sex jihad?

"During its Golden Age, Islam was known for highly controversial and pluralistic debates. Today, the reality in many Muslim countries is quite different. There is little freedom of thought.. What can be done to promote more freedom of thought in Muslim countries?"

Klevius: The "golden age" was just the same as today, i.e. muslims sponging on resources they haven't themselves created. Slaves back then - oil and Western welfare today. More than 90% of the economy in Andalus was based on slavery - fully in line with islam's original enslavement formula: "Infidels" (i.e. non-muslims and women) could be enslaved because Muhammad had heard Allah (via an angel though) saying so.

Shabestari: Freedom of expression all depends on whether a people has politically developed to such an extent that it understands what freedom is. Then it will demand freedom of expression. Even now there is a great tendency towards freedom in Islamic countries. Yet, why it hasn't truly developed is another question. This has to do with political hurdles and the system of government in these countries. It is more of a cultural difficulty than a difficulty related to Islam or religion in general. Unfortunately, this is a retrograde cultural reality.

Klevius: Admittedly Hillary Clinton's sharia campaign against freedom of expression represents "a retrograde cultural reality". However, how could it possibly not be directly connected to islam itself when she works for the world's biggest and most fundamental islam representing organization, the Saudi based and steered OIC?!

"The Arab protest movements are associated by many people, both within these countries and also abroad, with the hope for democracy. Others (muslims) say that Islam fundamentally forbids democracy."

Klevius: Yet it's all islam and muslims - no matter what it stands for. As a consequence it encompasses both the most evil of muslims as well as those "muslims" who can't be distinguished from non-muslims other than by name. And this state of affairs is of course most handy for the most evil of muslims.

Peter Klevius question to the world: Should islamophobia be the first criminalized illness*?

* Either you see it as an illness not to be uncritical of islam, or you see it as blasphemy against the worst crime against humanity history knows about.

UK Parliament and the below Swedish muslim MP (associated with the extreme far-right fascist organization the Grey Wolves) have in common that they want to criminalize Peter Klevius islamophobia. 

That would be the first criminal illness ever, right. And quite the opposite to the Council of Europe's Human Rights resolution 2253 (2019) against Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia (OIC is the supremacist world Umma for all muslims - and represented through 57 mainly muslim states muslim foreign ministers in UN and elsewhere. And the real Fuhrer is the murderous Saudi state terrorism and war crimes committing Saudi dictator "primce" MBS). Not to mention the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948 which islam under no circumstances can be part of without losing its racist and sexist supremacist appeal. And a toothless islam would in no time empty most mosques around the world. Btw, does BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim Mishal Husain, regularly pray at the mosque? Peter Klevius doesn't think so - if at all. She stands as the perfect example of modern bigoted hypocrisy re. an evil ideology that has caused more suffering, rapetivism, slavery and genocides throughout 1400 years than any other ideology.

Turkish-origin politician Mikail Yuksel forms Migrant Party in Sweden

Sweden's Liberal Party burns the Swedish flag. As do many muslims.

Morgan Johansson, Minister for Justice and Migration, wants to forbid racist organizations. Peter Klevius suggests he starts  with Saudi based and steered OIC which decided to abandon the most basic of Human Rights and replace them with supremacist sharia.

A Swedish hero apostate and Atheist

Swedish ex-muslim Mohamed Omar, turned Atheist: If we have a better moral than Muhammed, what then should we have him for?

Peter Klevius comment: 'Mohamed' (the anointed) and 'Peter' (the rock) are pre-islamic and pre-Christian names.

Mohamed Omar: När jag läser om att den liberale debattören Fredrik Segerfeldt konverterat till islam och kallar sig Karim blir jag smått provocerad. Det som provocerar mig är att allt liksom är på lek. Han säger det själv – han konverterar bara ”på pappret” för att kunna gifta sig med en marockansk kvinna. Han är egentligen fortfarande ateist.

Är man ateist, så kan man inte samtidigt vara muslim. Det säger sig självt. En ateist tror inte på någon gud medan en muslim tror att det finns en gud som sänt Muhammed till mänskligheten med Koranen. En annan sak som provocerar mig är detta att det nästan alltid är icke-muslimerna som ska anpassa sig till muslimernas krav och visa respekt för muslimernas känslor.

Imamer kan predika i Svenska kyrkan, fast de har en helt annan tro. Detta samtidigt som samma kyrkor inte skulle låta kristna med klassisk tro predika. För deras tro är ”exkluderande” eller ”intolerant”. Det är något osunt med denna underdånighet. När jag var muslim fick jag massor av inbjudningar till att prata i kyrkor och delta på konferenser. Nu när jag är kritisk, och dessutom sverigevän, är de inte lika entusiastiska. Jag får faktiskt inga inbjudningar alls.


Peter Klevius: Few liberal/secular/"cultural" "muslims" use mosques, while many racist/sexist supremacist muslims do. And when the worst mosques get less fundamental, then the worst muslims use other channels anyway. So mosques will be empty when "main stream" muslims follow full civilized Human Rights. It's not a Human Right to practice a religion against Human Rights. This is how orginal islam suffers death because it can't keep up its racist supremacist hate against the "infidels".

The Council of Europe is exactly* equally "islamophobic" as is Peter Klevius in all of his writings.

* More than 15 years ago Peter Klevius told the world via the web that he will eliminate islam - because he, unlike others, uses (since his teens) the license free ultimate weapon, i.e. the anti-fascist 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) where human equality is given everyone - without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and no distinction made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Sadly, the most prevalent use of the UDHR today seems to be to protect those who abuse and violate it. To really understand the basics you need to understand the negative part of Human Rights. So although The Council of Europe eventually has observed the same issues with OIC/islam/sharia as has Peter Klevius, their mandate and PC fail to connect the dots to the inevitable fact that islam, in any meaningful sense, is connected to its evil origin by its own tenets in a way that hinders it from accepting Human Rights equality without falling apart. A "good islam" is a dead islam. And although Peter Klevius dislikes all supremacist "monotheist" religions (because they always have a problem to update themselves with Human Rights when social norms change - usually due to technology and vanishing taboos), islam's evilness has locked in more people in backwardness (especially women) than any other religion. Moreover, Peter Klevius and The Council of Europe's "islamophobic" criticism of islam also reveals the source of islam induced jihad hate, eagerly used by organizations and states for military and political etc. purpose.

Council of Europe
Resolution 2253 (2019)
Sharia, the Cairo Declaration (OIC) and the European Convention on Human Rights

Author(s): Parliamentary Assembly

Origin - Assembly debate on 22 January 2019 (4th Sitting) (see Doc. 14787 and Addendum, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Antonio Gutiérrez; Doc. 14803, opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, rapporteur: Ms Maryvonne Blondin; Doc. 14804, opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, rapporteur: Mr Constantinos Efstathiou; and Doc. 14805, opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, rapporteur: Mr Manuel Tornare). Text adopted by the Assembly on 22 January 2019 (4th Sitting).
1.    The Parliamentary Assembly recalls, inter alia, its Resolution 1846 (2011) and its Recommendation 1987 (2011) on combating all forms of discrimination based on religion, as well as its Resolution 2076 (2015) on freedom of religion and living together in a democratic society and its Recommendation 1962 (2011) on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue. On these occasions, the Assembly examined the co-existence of different religions in a democratic society. It recalls that pluralism, tolerance and a spirit of openness are the cornerstones of cultural and religious diversity.
2.    The Assembly reiterates, from the outset, the obligation on member States to protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, “the Convention”), which represents one of the pillars of a democratic society. The right to manifest one’s religion, however, is a qualified right whose exercise may be subject to limitations arising from certain specific points of public interest and, under Article 17 of the Convention, may not aim at the destruction of other Convention rights or freedoms.
3.    The Assembly also recalls that it has on several occasions underlined its support for the principle of the separation of State and religion as one of the pillars of a democratic society, for instance in its Recommendation 1804 (2007) on State, religion, secularity and human rights. This principle should continue to be respected.
4.    The Assembly considers that the various Islamic declarations on human rights, adopted since the 1980s, while being more religious than legal, fail to reconcile Islam with universal human rights, especially insofar as Sharia is their unique source of reference. This includes the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which, while not legally binding, has symbolic value and political significance in terms of human rights policy under Islam. It is therefore of great concern that three Council of Europe member States – Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey (for the latter, with the limitation: “so far as it is compatible with its laws and its commitments under international conventions”) – have endorsed, explicitly or implicitly, the 1990 Cairo Declaration, as have Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco and Palestine, whose parliaments enjoy partner for democracy status with the Assembly.
5.    The Assembly is also greatly concerned about the fact that Sharia law – including provisions which are in clear contradiction with the Convention – is applied, either officially or unofficially, in several Council of Europe member States, or parts thereof.
6.    The Assembly recalls that the European Court of Human Rights has already stated in Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and others v. Turkey that the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime are incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society. The Assembly fully agrees that Sharia rules on, for example, divorce and inheritance proceedings are clearly incompatible with the Convention, in particular its Article 14, which prohibits discrimination on grounds such as sex or religion, and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (ETS No. 117), which establishes equality between marital partners. Sharia law is also in contradiction with other provisions of the Convention and its additional protocols, including Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 12 (right to marry), Article 1 of the Protocol to the Convention (ETS No. 9) (protection of property) and Protocols Nos. 6 (ETS No. 114) and 13 (ETS No. 187) abolishing the death penalty.
7.    In this context, the Assembly regrets that despite the recommendation it made in its Resolution 1704 (2010) on freedom of religion and other human rights for non-Muslim minorities in Turkey and for the Muslim minority in Thrace (eastern Greece), asking the Greek authorities to abolish the application of Sharia law in Thrace, this is still not the case. Muftis continue to act in a judicial capacity without proper procedural safeguards. The Assembly denounces in particular the fact that in divorce and inheritance proceedings – two key areas over which muftis have jurisdiction – women are at a distinct disadvantage.
8.    The Assembly is also concerned about the “judicial” activities of “Sharia councils” in the United Kingdom. Although they are not considered part of the British legal system, Sharia councils attempt to provide a form of alternative dispute resolution, whereby members of the Muslim community, sometimes voluntarily, often under considerable social pressure, accept their religious jurisdiction mainly in marital issues and Islamic divorce proceedings but also in matters relating to inheritance and Islamic commercial contracts. The Assembly is concerned that the rulings of the Sharia councils clearly discriminate against women in divorce and inheritance cases. The Assembly is aware that informal Islamic courts may also exist in other Council of Europe member States.
9.    The Assembly calls on the member States of the Council of Europe to protect human rights regardless of religious or cultural practices or traditions on the principle that, where human rights are concerned, there is no room for religious or cultural exceptions.
10.    The Assembly notes with approval the 2008 judgment of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords addressing these principles.
11.    The Assembly calls on Council of Europe member States and those whose parliaments enjoy partner for democracy status with the Assembly to:
11.1.    bolster pluralism, tolerance and a spirit of openness by proactive measures, taken by governments, civil society and religious communities, while respecting common values as reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights;
11.2.    design and implement educational and vocational programmes aimed at rooting human rights and fundamental freedoms as enshrined in the Convention, and in particular the principles of gender equality and of non-discrimination based on religious beliefs, in the cultural and legal tradition of their countries;
11.3.    promote, within the multilateral organisations of which they are members or observers, the universal values of human rights without any discrimination based, inter alia, on sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or religious faith or the lack thereof;
11.4.    engage in the process of revision of the Cairo Declaration launched by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) so as to ensure that the future OIC Declaration on Human Rights is compatible with universal human rights standards and the European Convention on Human Rights, which is binding on all Council of Europe member States and a source of inspiration for those whose parliaments enjoy partner for democracy status.
12.    The Assembly calls on Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey to consider distancing themselves from the 1990 Cairo Declaration by:
12.1.    considering withdrawing from the Cairo Declaration;
12.2.    making use of all available means to make declarations, so as to ensure that the 1990 Cairo Declaration has no effect on their domestic legal systems that may be inconsistent with their obligations as Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights; or
12.3.    considering adopting some formal act which clearly establishes the Convention as a superior source of obligatory binding norms.
13.    The Assembly, while noting the legislative change in Greece which made the practice of Sharia law in civil and inheritance matters optional for the Muslim minority, calls on the Greek authorities to:
13.1.    rapidly and fully implement the Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Molla Sali v. Greece and in particular, to monitor whether the above-mentioned legislative change will be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Convention;
13.2.    allow the Muslim minority to choose freely its muftis as purely religious leaders (that is, without judicial powers), through election, thereby abolishing the application of Sharia law, as already recommended in Resolution 1704 (2010).
14.    The Assembly, while welcoming the recommendations put forward in the conclusions of the Home Office independent review into the application of Sharia law in England and Wales as a major step towards a solution, calls on the authorities of the United Kingdom to:
14.1.    ensure that Sharia councils operate within the law, especially as it relates to the prohibition of discrimination against women, and respect all procedural rights;
14.2.    review the Marriage Act to make it a legal requirement for Muslim couples to civilly register their marriage before or at the same time as their Islamic ceremony, as is already stipulated by law for Christian and Jewish marriages;
14.3.    take appropriate enforcement measures to oblige the celebrant of any marriage, including Islamic marriages, to ensure that the marriage is also civilly registered before or at the same time as celebrating the religious marriage;
14.4.    remove the barriers to Muslim women’s access to justice and step up measures to provide protection and assistance to those who are in a situation of vulnerability;
14.5.    put in place awareness-raising campaigns to promote knowledge of their rights among Muslim women, especially in the areas of marriage, divorce, custody of children and inheritance, and work with Muslim communities, women’s organisations and other non-governmental organisations to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment;
14.6.    conduct further research on the “judicial” practice of Sharia councils and on the extent to which such councils are used voluntarily, particularly by women, many of whom would be subject to intense community pressure in this respect.
15.    The Assembly calls on the countries (member States and observer States) that are members of the OIC, on Greece and on the United Kingdom to report back to the Assembly by June 2020 on the actions they have taken as a follow-up to this Resolution.

Why is new EU chief Ursula Rose Ladson Albrecht von der Leyen's* "conservative conservative" mother removed from Wikipedia?!

Heidi Adele Albrecht Stromeyer had 7 children, just like her daughter Ursula Rose Ladson Albrecht von der Leyen*. 

  However, only Ursula's father is presented in Wikipedia's text.

Peter Klevius questions to Ursula Rose Ladson Albrecht von der Leyen: What do you think about MeToo and OIC's sharia (so called "islamic human rights") that denies muslim women full Human Rights equality? And why do you rather sell weapons to islamofascist war crimes committing dictators than cooperating with peaceful and prosperity spreading China? And how many children do you think is good for planet Earth's health today?

* von der Leyen descends by adoption from Sarah Ladson and her slave owner family.

James Henry Ladson (1795–1868) was an American planter and businessman from Charleston, South Carolina. He was the owner of James H. Ladson & Co., a major Charleston firm that was active in the rice and cotton business, and owned over 200 slaves. He was also the Danish Consul in South Carolina, a director of the State Bank and held numerous other business, church and civic offices. James H. Ladson was a strong proponent of slavery and especially the use of religion to maintain discipline among the slaves. He and other members of the Charleston planter and merchant elite played a key role in launching the American Civil War. Among Ladson's descendants is Ursula von der Leyen, who briefly lived under the alias Rose Ladson.

His sister Sarah Reeve Ladson painted by Thomas Sully; in the portrait "she visually made reference to the taste of the slave women around whom she had been raised" with the turban and bright colours^[1]

The front of his town house, the Ladson Ladson in 8 Meeting Street, where he lived with his family and 12 slaves part of the year

He belonged to one of South Carolina's most prominent planter and merchant families, that had played a major role in the British colonization of the Americas and the slave trade in British North America. He was the son of former Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina James Ladson and descended from many former British colonial governors. His maternal grandfather was the merchant banker, politician and slave trader Benjamin Smith. He was mainly of English and Scottish descent, and also had some French ancestors. The Ladson family emigrated from Northamptonshire to Barbados and then to South Carolina as one of the first English settlers in 1679.^[2] His great-grandfather Joseph Wragg was the largest slave trader in British North America. Among his other ancestors were governors John Yeamans, James Moore, Robert Gibbes, Thomas Smith and Joseph Blake, and the first European settler of Carolina Henry Woodward. The Gibbes Museum of Art is named for his grandmother's family.
He owned the La Grange and Fawn Hill plantations, which produced around 600,000 pounds of rice each year. He owned over 200 slaves by 1850.^[3][4] His business partner William Cattell Bee was a cousin of Barnard Elliott Bee Jr.^[5]
Ladson was a prominent community leader in the Charleston area. He was the Danish Consul in South Carolina from 1831.^[6][7] He was also a director of the State Bank^[8] and held various leadership roles in the Episcopal Church, e.g. as a member of the standing committee of the diocese.^[9] The Charleston Mercury noted that he was "respected by all, and disesteemed by none."^[10] The Charleston Daily News described him as "an excellent specimen of the old Carolina gentleman, pure in character, and high-toned in his dealings, and was for many years the head of the house of James H. Ladson & Co., now represented by the firm of W.C. Bee & Co. This firm carried on an extensive and lucrative business as rice and cotton factors. He was also a bank director, and for most of his life a leading member of St. Michael's Episcopal Church of our city, where he stood foremost in Christian virtues and active benevolence."^[11]
James H. Ladson was part of the oligarchy of elite planters and merchants who controlled Charleston, a city that played a major role in the history of slavery in the United States, and he and several of his family members were actively involved in launching the American Civil War. A proponent of "states' rights," he was a vice-president of the Great Southern Rights and Southern Co-Operation Meeting in Charleston in 1851.^[12]
He spent "a portion of the year"^[13] on his North Santee plantation, but otherwise lived in a town house in Charleston with 12 domestic slaves.^[14] His company's business address was 13 Southern Wharf.^[15][16]
His sister Sarah Reeve Ladson was a prominent socialite who was married to the Baltimore merchant, ship owner, East India importer and art collector Robert Gilmor, Jr.^[17] Sarah Reeve Ladson was regarded as one of the most fashionable American women of her time, and was the subject of several portraits and sculptures, including a famous portrait by Thomas Sully.^[18] Art historian Maurie D. McInnis notes that "she visually made reference to the taste of the slave women around whom she had been raised" with the turban and bright colours.^[1]
He was married to Eliza Ann Fraser, a daughter of the merchant and plantation owner Charles Fraser (1782–1860), who owned the Bellevue plantation near the Pocotaligo river and whose grandfather John Fraser had moved from Scotland to South Carolina around 1700. His father-in-law was a nephew of John Rutledge. His wife was also a niece of the painter Charles Fraser, who painted miniature portraits of him and his wife in 1826.^[19] Their son, Major William Henry Ladson (1829–1861), was a partner in his father's business J.H. Ladson & Co. and a Confederate officer who was killed during the American Civil War. The latter was the grandfather of Mary Ladson Robertson,^[20] who was the great-grandmother of Ursula von der Leyen,^[21] who for a year lived under the name Rose Ladson in London to escape terrorists.^[22][23]
Ladson, South Carolina, is named in honour of his family.

Views on slavery

In 1845 he described his views on the use of religion to maintain control over the slaves.^[13][24][25]

The religious and moral instruction of the negroes has, for several years, been a subject of great interest to me, and I am satisfied that our exertions in their behalf (although much, very much, yet remains to be done) are not only misunderstood abroad, but unappreciated. To improve the negro is a far more arduous task than many, who have no experience in teaching them, are aware. They are naturally dull, and of a weak intellect, but generally possessing good memories; and those who have been engaged in this work of charity, have to lament, after much labour, that the instruction they have endeavoured to give, although remembered, has been perverted and misdirected.

— James H. Ladson, "The Religious Instruction of the Negroes" (1845)

Ladson believed strongly in religious instruction to maintain discipline among the slaves, and built his own chapel on the plantation that could accommodate around 100–110 slaves at a time. He stated that:^[13]

I am satisfied that the influence of this instruction upon the discipline of my plantation, and on the spirit and subordination of the negroes has been most beneficial. Their spirits are cheerful, as I judge from their gaiety of heart, and the respect for the overseer, and drivers, is evidenced by, generally, a ready obedience to orders.

— James H. Ladson, "The Religious Instruction of the Negroes" (1845)