Hanne Nabintu Herland OpEd Political Witchhunt stating her Contempt of Court Refusal to Testify in Breivik Case; indicate lack of understanding of Breivik’s defence: Necessity.
Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 21 May 2012
From: Habeus Mentem
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 11:13 PM
To: Hanne Herland (**@hannenabintuherland.no); Helle Skjervold (**@aftenposten.no); Geir Salvesen (**@aftenposten.no)
Cc: NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (**@domstol.no); NO Oslo District Court: Admin (**@domstol.no); NO: Crt: Breivik: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Pros Holden. MJus: Grete Faremo (**@jd.dep.no); Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Police Directorate (**@politiet.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (**@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (**@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (**@advokatstabell.no)
Subject: Hanne Nabintu Herland: Heller fengsel enn å vitne i Behring Breivik-rettssaken
Hanne Nabintu Herland @HanneNabintuHer
CC: Aftenposten
CC: Breivik Court Parties
Ms. Herland,
Aftenposten: Politisk heksejakt and Heller fengsel enn å vitne i Behring Breivik-rettssaken / Political Witchhunt and Rather Prison than Testifying in Breivik Case; indicate your lack of understanding of Breivik’s defence: Necessity.
I read your OpEd in Aftenposten wherein you state that you informed the court that you refuse to testify in the Breivik case, even if you are found to be in contempt of court. You refuse to ‘run the gauntlet in the twisted killer’s show where he and his defenders reel in people with so-called ‘media appeal’ to give the killer sympathy.’
You further state that you were not a ‘witness’ to the July 22 Attacks.
Brief Introduction (lengthier background info at end of the letter): I am a deep green ecology Feminist member of the Radical Honoursty culture.
I am unaware of any court of law that has found Mr. Breivik guilty of any crime. As far as I am aware, the principles of ‘Western culture’ which you profess to be a supporter of are founded upon the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Mr. Breivik’s defence – political necessity – requires that he admit to the acts charged, but that does not necessary mean he is ‘guilty’. Do you consider yourself the judge in the matter, that you have already found Breivik ‘guilty’ of a crime which he has not yet been found guilty of by an impartial court? Why do you think Aftenposten have censored the information shared with Prime Minister Stoltenberg, 1676 Norwegian National, Regional and Local Politicians, 1,278 editors and journalists, 482 Law Professors and Lawyers, 1,230 Oslo University Professors and Lecturers, and 104 NGO Officials from the Norwegian people, that Breivik’s Acquittal is Justified by Media's Population-Terrorism Connection?
Hanne Herland describes her book RESPEKT in English (06:16) |
Briefly: You have not been summonsed as a ‘witness’ to the 22 July 2011 criminal act, anymore than a Nuclear Physicist expert witness to a Greenpeace Political Necessity defendant’s trial would have witnessed the Greenpeace defendants ‘criminal act’. You, like other expert witnesses in Political Necessity trials, are an expert witness on ‘political necessity’ issues that motivated the defendant. Nuclear Physicists don’t sanction the criminal trespass actions of Greenpeace protestors who parachute onto nuclear power stations, or sabotage nuclear power stations power lines or water pipes, but they do have the honour and integrity to testify in court as expert witnesses to the nuclear issues that concern Greenpeace protestors.
Breivik Legal Defence: Necessity, Political Necessity, and Military Necessity:
Thanks to media censorship of the details of political necessity defence, you can be forgiven for your ignorance of the fact that Breivik is pleading to Political Necessity. As stated by the Oslo Court on 17 April, Breivik’s defence is Necessity (Nodret) not Self Defence: “Wrong translation in the 22-7 trial yesterday: Breivik said “nodrett”, Correct translation: “Principle of necessity”, not “self defence”.
In Norwegian law, Section 47 of the Penal Code is the foundation for the principle of necessity: “No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone’s person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act.”
Generally, a common law necessity example would be: Man’s wife is pregnant and ready to give birth, so he rushes her to the hospital and breaks the speedlimit. He pleads to necessity, agreeing that he did break the speed limit, but that he was obeying a ‘higher law’, namely to save a life.
A civil disobedience political necessity example could be: Anti-Apartheid Political protestors trespass onto an Apartheid Embassy’s grounds and refuse to leave; or Environmentalist Greenpeace protestors trespass onto Sellafield or some nuclear power stations grounds and refuse to leave, claiming they are breaking ‘tresspassing’ laws in favour of exposing the illegality of ‘apartheid’ or ‘nuclear ecological threats’. Necessity defence is very common amongst left wing protestors.
A military necessity example could be: War is declared with Japan and military officials consider it a matter of necessity to detain all American-Japanese in concentration camps for the duration of the war; or a terrorist is arrested and it is believed he has intelligence about an impending terrorist attack; so it is considered a matter of necessity to torture him to obtain the information about the impending terrorist attack.
In all instances the individual pleading to necessity is faced – objectively or subjectively, or combination thereof -- with two laws, one of which he has to break; and is required to choose which law is the ‘supreme’ or ‘higher’ law according to his political, cultural or religious conscience.
ABB Defence: Political & Military Necessity (Hum. Law of Armed Conflict) (02:22) |
ABB Defence: Political & Military Necessity (Hum. Law of Armed Conflict) (02:22)
A short youtube video which includes an overview of both the common law defence known as ‘Necessity’, or if used in civil disobedience actions, it is referred to as ‘Political Necessity’ and then there is also the International Law defence known as ‘Military Necessity’.
Pierce Law Review: Civil Disobedience and Necessity:
The necessity defense asserts that breaking the law was justified in order to avert a greater harm that would occur as a result of the government policy the offender was protesting.
Freedom of expression in a free society includes freewheeling public dissent on controversial political issues of the day. Civil disobedience is a form of protest that, while usually peaceful, involves violating the law -- usually by trespassing on government property, blocking access to buildings, or engaging in disorderly conduct. Civil disobedience has been called “the deliberate violation of law for a vital social purpose.” In their day in court, civil disobedients have at times sought to interpose the necessity defense to justify their conduct. The necessity defense asserts that breaking the law was justified in order to avert a greater harm that would occur as a result of the government policy the offender was protesting.
Protestors will seek to invoke the necessity defense not so much to gain acquittal from the relatively minor charges, but to advance the more important objective of publicly airing the moral and political issues that inspired their act of civil disobedience. There is the hope of gaining notoriety for a cause by discussing it in court, and “educating” the jury about political grievances or other social harms.
The strategy is meant to appeal to a higher principle than the law being violated the necessity of stopping objectionable government policies, and to let the jury have an opportunity to weigh their technically illegal actions on the scales of justice. Acquittal is of course hoped for in the end but may be quite low on the protestors' list of priorities.
The necessity defense is attractive to reformers who practice civil disobedience because it allows them to deny guilt without renouncing their socially driven acts. It offers a means to discuss political issues in the courtroom, a forum in which reformers can demand equal time and, perhaps, respect. Moreover, its elements allow civil disobedients to describe their political motivations. In proving the imminence of the harm, they can demonstrate the urgency of the social problem. In showing the relative severity of the harms, they can show the seriousness of the social evil they seek to avert. In establishing the lack of reasonable alternatives, they can assault the unresponsiveness of those in power in dealing with the problem and prod them to action. And in presenting evidence of a causal relationship, they can argue the importance of individual action in reforming society. Thus, the elements of the necessity defense provide an excellent structure for publicizing and debating political issues in the judicial forum.
The goal of describing their political motivations to the jury, and implicitly to the media, is subject to numerous hurdles inherent in the necessity defense. In most instances, as we will see, courts will rule as a matter of law that the actors have failed in the offer of proof regarding the elements of the necessity defense so that the jury rarely is given the chance to weigh in on the matter. On the other hand, if the defense is allowed, the jury is called upon to weigh controversial political issues and to function as the “conscience of the community.” “Reflected in the jury’s decision is a judgment of whether, under all the circumstances of the event and in the light of all known about the defendant, the prohibited act, if committed, deserves condemnation by the law.”3 In cases where judges have been persuaded to allow the necessity defense, juries have, often enough, delivered not guilty verdicts.
Background information to the Necessity Defense:
From its very beginnings, Jewish law has been viewed as an expression of God's will. Biblically, the law is referred to as the "word of God," never of humankind. God is the sole authentic legislator, and righteousness lies in observance of His law. Moreover, the absence of righteousness places at risk the lives and well-being of both the individual and the entire community.
For ancient Israel, law was always the revealed will of God. All transgressions of the law were consequently offenses against God. The idea that human legislators might make law independently of God's will would have been incomprehensible. Indeed, as God was the only legislator, the sole function of human authorities was to discover the law and to ensure its proper application.
According to the Talmud: "Whatever a competent scholar will yet derive from the Law, that was already given to Moses on Mount Sinai." It follows from all this that, in the Jewish tradition, the principle of a Higher Law is not only well-established; it is the very foundation of all legal order. Where the law of the state stands in marked contrast to this principle, it is altogether null and void. In certain circumstances, as we shall now discover, such contrast positively mandates opposition to the law of the state. Here, what is generally known as "civil disobedience" is not only lawful, but genuinely law-enforcing.
International law, which is based upon a variety of higher law foundations, including Jewish Law, forms part of the law of all nations. This is the case whether or not the incorporation of international law into national law is codified, explicitly, as it is in the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the United States Constitution. Jewish law rests always upon two principles: the overriding sovereignty of God and the derivative sacredness of the individual person. Both principles, intertwined and interdependent, underlie the reasoned argument for civil disobedience in Israel.
From the sacredness of the person, which stems from each individual's resemblance to divinity, flows the freedom to choose. The failure to exercise this freedom, which is evident wherever a response to political authority is merely automatic, represents a betrayal of individual legal responsibility. (Necessity of Civil Disobedience)
In the United States and elsewhere in the judeo-christian western world, a traditional common law defense known as "necessity" (which has also been incorporated into certain criminal codes) permits conduct that would otherwise constitute an offense if the accused believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.
In essence Breivik’s political necessity act can be summarized as: 'Breivik brutally killed 77 to save 770 million from impending Islamic colonisation, massively censored from public discourse by media'.
Lara Johnstone Background Information:
Excerpt from my Affidavit filed to the Norway Supreme Court in the Breivik matter, which has been censored by all Norwegian Media:
[1] I am the daughter of a former Kwa-Zulu Natal farmer (Farm: Gerizim near Utrecht). On 11 October 1997, I married African-American Demian Emile Johnson in Folsom Prison, California, where he has been serving a sentence of 15 to life since 1982 (separated, filed for amicable divorce). My original commitment to South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation process may be found in my Submission to ‘Register of Reconciliation’ and donation to Presidents Fund for Reparations to assist victims of gross violations of human rights dated 18 January 1999; which detailed my willingness to donate my entire Inheritance to facilitate sincere Truth and Forgiveness.
[2] I joined the Radical Honesty culture and religion in 1999, after reading Dr. Blanton’s book Radical Honesty: How To Transform Your Life By Telling the Truth, going to one of his workshops; and learning how to be specific about my anger, and to share it honourably face-to-face to the individual I was angry with; with the commitment of remaining in the conversation until sincere sensate forgiveness had occurred.
[3] Radical Honoursty is simply a more militant subculture of the Radical Honesty culture which incorporates additional Deep Green Ecology and Bushido Dischordian values to Radical Honesty values.
[4] I am the only member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion, in South Africa. The Radical Honesty culture and religion are founded upon the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract: Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness ; as excerpted from: Practicing Radical Honesty . Radical Honesty is a powerful process by which people can make corrections in the minds distorted and only partly conscious map of the world. Our maps of the world are distorted by our repressed anger and resentment; the greater the amount of repressed anger and resentment, the greater the distortion. The key to individuality, integrity, individual freedom, and free societies, lies in providing people with the skills and capabilities to get over their anger, and experience sincere forgiveness. It is the way the statistics from Stanley Milgram’s experiments on blind obedience to authority get changed.
[5] As a rule-of-law political activist, I endorse and have advocated for the rule-of-law for all, rich, poor, white, black, left and right, religious or atheist. I am separated (filed for divorce) from Demian Emile Johnson, who is, and has been, incarcerated in California Dept. of Corrections, for the entire duration of our marriage . In addition to Radical Honesty I have been involved in non-violent civil disobedience actions on behalf of my former husband , Greenpeace , Amnesty Int’l, Pacific Inst. for Criminal Justice , Jericho 98 , Crack the CIA , The Disclosure Project , New Abolitionist , Justice for Timothy McVeigh , Alliance for Democracy , Boycott 2010 World Cup , Right of Return for African White Refugees , et al.
[6] I am 45 years old. With the help of an IUD, inserted at age 19, Common Sense and a love for children, I have never been pregnant, nor had an abortion; nor brought any unwanted children onto the planet; nor contributed to local, national or international overpopulation or resource wars; nor advocated on behalf of population or economic growth; or materialist consumerism.
[7] I have political motivated criminal convictions for:
1. Terrorism: On 18 June 2002 (Phi Day and President Mbeki’s 60th birthday) I made a bomb threat to the P.W. Botha International airport in George and then turned myself into the Police, based upon the political necessity of exposing SA’s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud (particularly the relationship between overpopulation and terrorism and the media’s coverup of overpopulation-environment-terrorism connections). I was sentenced to two years correctional supervision.[8] My Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist culture of Radical Transparency Principles: (A) A healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; similarly a psychological integrity environment of philosophical radical transparency courageous truth searching honesty and sincere forgiveness is a sine qua non for healthy, transparent relationships that result in the co-creation of a code of conduct that enables non-violent honest sincere resolutions to disagreements.
2. Malicious Damage to State Property: I broke about half a dozen windows in George Women’s prison and set the prison on fire on 19 April 2003 (Anniversary: Protestant Reformation , OKC Bombing & Warsaw Ghetto Uprising ), when Prison authorities refused to recognize my hungerstrike for a single cell and denied me my right to practice my Radical Honesty culture. (Sentenced as above)
3. Contempt in Facie Curiae: I accused a white Afrikaner Magistrate & Black Xhosa Prosecutor of being ‘corrupt white and black kaffirs ’ in court proceedings. When the Magistrate ordered me to apologize I said ‘Fuck You’ to him very loudly a few times, including showing him my middle finger. I was convicted of 3 counts of contempt and sentenced to a year in George Women’s Prison (2 x 3 m; 1 x 6 m).
[9] My Problem Solving Leadership Principles: Enable a Radical Transparency environment to facilitate free thinking ideas for the problem to be clearly and succinctly defined ; suggestions accepted based upon merit of idea, not individuals social standing; fanclubs and followers are eschewed.
[10] My Guerrilla Lawfare Worldview: The Paradox of the Masculine (Reason and Logic) Insecurity Human Farming Kaffir Matrix Court: Radical Transparency Problem Solving is to the Masculine Insecurity Kaffir Matrix Court; what Martin Luther or Galileo Galilei were to the Catholic Church. The Kaffir Matrix Court system is founded on ‘Kaffir Legislation’: Inalienable Right to Breed and Vote: Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‘Right to Breed’ and ‘Right to Vote’, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, etc, etc.
[11] Iron Mountain ‘War is a Racket’ Q&A: Why does the Masculine Insecurity Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix avoid [requiring] voting or breeding licences???
[12] Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‘Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war .
[13] Kaffir Legislation covers up that the Inalienable Right to Vote, or Universal Suffrage for the Ignorant is the road to centralisation of power and tyranny (“In order to achieve this goal [of world domination], we must introduce [the right to vote] universal suffrage beforehand, without distinctions of class and wealth. Then the masses of people will decide everything; and since it [universal suffrage] is controlled by us we will achieve through it the absolute majority, which we could never achieve if only the educated and possessing classes had the vote.” -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 10th Sitting, Wallstein Pub. House, ISBN 3-89244-191-x, p. 60)
Sincerely,
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty Ecolaw Feminist
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
» » » » [For Footnotes see PDF: PDF :: Hanne Herland :: Aftenposten]
@HanneNabintuHer Clarification of #Breivik Political Necessity & Military Necessity Defence @Aftenposten @Oslotingrett bit.ly/JAgvNy
— Radical Honoursty (@WhiteRefugee) May 21, 2012
EcoFeminist to .@HanneNabintuHer: Clarification of #Breivik Political & Military Necessity Defence bit.ly/JAgvNy @mariesimonsen
— Serpico Savage (@Habeus_4_Mentem) May 22, 2012
No RESPEKT for EcoFeminist #Breivik Truth Teller from @HanneNabintuHer bit.ly/JAgvNy @tv2norge @jensstoltenberg @nongenderous
— Radical Honoursty (@WhiteRefugee) May 22, 2012
Acknowledged as Received
No comments:
Post a Comment