English & Norwegian Defense League Again Shut Down Multiculti Feminists Facebook Page in Support of Rule of Law Free & Fair Trial for Breivik
Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 15 February 2012
English and Norwegian Defense League members shut down Norway v. Breivik :: Habeus Mentem facebook page, dedicated to supporting a free and fair trial for Breivik, in accordance with the rule of law.
The mission of the Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem page was:To support the Norwegian government to provide Breivik with a free and fair trial, equivalent to the treason trial provided to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid South African government.
Habeus Mentem is a legal concept similar to the concept of Habeus Corpus. Habeus Memtem refers to the right to a person to their own mind (beliefs and values) and culture. Put differently: the right to be deemed legally sane.
Anders Behring Breivik; born 13 February 1979, is a Norwegian terrorist, and the confessed perpetrator of the 2011 attacks in Norway. On 22 July 2011, Breivik bombed the government buildings in Oslo, which resulted in eight deaths. He then carried out a mass shooting at a camp of the Workers' Youth League (AUF) of the Labour Party on the island of Utøya where he killed 69 people, mostly teenagers.
Breivik's militant ideology is described in a compendium of texts, titled 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence and distributed electronically by Breivik on the day of the attacks.
Janne Kristiansen, Chief of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), has stated that Breivik "deliberately desisted from violent exhortations on the net [and] has more or less been a moderate, and has neither been part of any extremist network."
Breivik's statements that he considered his terrorist acts to be 'atrocious but necessary' to prevent a greater harm, are in accordance to the legal principles of the defence of political necessity or military necessity. The political necessity defence is frequently used by protestors, such as for example: Anti-Apartheid protestors used it when they occupied South African embassies. Katya Komisaruk pleaded to political necessity when she broke into Van den Burg Air Force Base to destroy the computers used to detonate Ballistic Missiles.
POLITICAL NECESSITY: In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense. Most common law and civil law jurisdictions recognize this defense, but only under limited circumstances. Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid.
MILITARY NECESSITY: Military necessity, along with distinction, and proportionality, are three important principles of international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict.
Military necessity is governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court defined military necessity as: “The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) [of the Rome Statute] requires, inter alia, an assessment of: (a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury; (b) the anticipated military advantage; (c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).” [Luis Moreno-Ocampo OTP letter to senders re Iraq, 9 February 2006; International Criminal Court (ICC)]
As a radical honoursty (radical honoursty judges individuals based upon the content of their character, not their race, religion, ideology or culture), hence in Breivik's eyes a 'multiculti feminist' (Breivik's enemy), the founder of this page does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law and free and fair trials, for EVERYONE.
This is the second time, the English and Norwegian Defense Leagues shut down a facebook page in support of a free and fair trial for Breivik.
The Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem page was not marketed to any other facebook page, hence no facebook member's personal profile or page profile or group were notified that it even existed.
The only link to the Facebook page, was from this Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored blog. The only people who have objected to the first page supporting Anders Breivik receiving a free and fair trial, were members of the English and Norwegian Defense League.
What is the motivation for the English and Norwegian Defense league leadership to covertly shut down the Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored and Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem pages?
Why do the English and Norwegian Defense league members object to any support for Breivik to receive a free and fair trial?
Who benefits, when the State, media, and social media deny Breivik's rights to a free and fair trial, censoring those who support the rule of law and his right to a free and fair trial?
Who benefits when those who support Breivik to be found guilty or innocent in accordance to the rule of law -- not by hatred and denying him a defense; -- are censored and silenced?“When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot, a male boot or female boot, a black boot or white boot, a Catholic, Muslim, Christian or Atheist boot, a straight, homosexual or lesbian boot; is of no consequence.”
None of the following Breivik related Facebook pages endorse the rule of law and a free and fair trial to be applied in the case of Norway v. Breivik. Nor do any of these pages seemingly bother the Norwegian and English Defense Leagues leadership elite. Why does a page supporting a rule of law free and fair trial for Anders Breivik, bother the English and Norwegian Defense League leadership elite so much?
Why the double standards? The following pages encourage fair minded Norwegians to support the State, the media and social media to consider Breivik guilty without anything resembling a rule of law free or fair trial. It may not be intelligent advocacy, but in a free speech republic, it is their free speech right. Why does it bother the English and Norwegian Defence League, when anyone advocates on behalf of a free and fair trial for Breivik? If you were a fair minded Norwegian, who considers the rule of law important, and who believes you live in a democratic Norwegian state, that provides everyone with a free and fair trial, and you observe your goverment and your media denying Breivik a free and fair trial, and censoring his arguments. Does that not prove Breivik was right, that there is no such thing as the rule of law, or free and fair trials and democracy in Norway?
When you hate Breivik enough to allow your hatred to manipulate you into supporting your government, fellow citizens and the media to deny Breivik a rule of law free and fair trial; then you are doing exactly what Breivik -- and the English and Norwegian Defense League??? -- wants you to do??“I disagree with every word you say; but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” -- Voltaire
» » » » [Facebook]