NO Env. Appeals Board Rules 'OverPopulation and Consumption does not Affect Environment'
The Environmental Appeals Board’s ruling that Editors decision-making to censor information about the Media’s Population-Environment-Terrorism Connection during Breivik’s Highly Public Terrorism trial, alleging that it was not ‘Environmental Information’ is beyond absurd, and totally lacking in factual and legal justifications.
Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 12 November 2012
Anders Breivik Alleged that his Terrorism was motivated by the Media’s Censorship of Non-Violent Problem Solving, which facilitated a socio-political pressure cooker reality for the media's If it Leads, It Bleeds Profit from violence.
Oslo Organized Crime Police Investigation Report: "Explanation of 22 July 2011, doc 08,01, states:
“[Breivik] emphasizes that if he had not been censored by the media all his life, he would not have had to do what he did. He believes the media have the main responsibility for what has happened because they did not publish his opinions.... The low-intensity civil war that he had already described, had lasted until now with ideological struggle and censorship of cultural conservatives...... He explains that this is the worst day of his life and that he has dreaded this for 2 years. He has been censored for years. He mentions Dagbladet and Aftenposten as those who among other things have censored him..... He says that he also wrote “essays” that he tried to publish via the usual channels, but that they were all censored..... The subject summarizes: As long as more than twelve were executed, the operation will still be a success. The experts ask how the number twelve comes into consideration. Twelve dead are needed to penetrate the censorship wall, he explains..... About his thoughts on the Utøya killings now, the subject says: The goal was to execute as many as possible. At least 30. It was horrible, but the number had to be assessed based on the global censorship limit. Utøya was a martyrdom, and I am very proud of it..... The subject says in the conversation that he knows the truth that is hidden from others. He believes that there is a civil war in the country. He believes he had to kill at least twelve, because there is a censorship-wall preventing an open debate about what is happening in the country..... So I knew I had to cross a certain threshold to exceed the censorship-wall of the international media."
Excerpts from Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: NO Env. Appeals Board Rules 'OverPopulation and Consumption does not Affect Environment''
13 May 2012: Social Science Testing of Anders Breivik’s Media Censorship Allegations:
I sent over 1,300 Norwegian Editors and Journalists an email: Breivik Acquittal Justified by Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings?, which included information that:
 In December 2011, complainant informed 1,283 Norwegian Editors and Journalists of her EcoFeminist support for Breivik’s right to a free and fair trial, in a Habeus Mentem application to the Oslo District Court.
The application argued that the roots of terrorism – irrespective of whether it was Mr. Breivik’s ‘right wing’ terrorism, or Mandela and Guevarra’s left wing terrorism -- were a result of the Mainstream Media’s censorship of non-violent problem solving to facilitate a socio-political pressure cooker reality for their “If it Bleads, It Leads” corporate propaganda profits from terrorism violence. The mainstream media are the chief cheerleaders for overpopulation and overconsumption, which cause resource scarcity, local and national resource wars, which frequently include terrorism.
Mainstream media deliberately and intentionally aggravate overpopulation, overconsumption and resource scarcity social conflict, by providing preferential access to parties who advocate on behalf of population growth and Consumptionism and silencing those opposing overpopulation and overconsumption.
The media’s conscious deliberate choices to advocate on behalf of population growth and Consumptionism, to the detriment of the environment, and ecological social and economic problems were well documented in the study by Dr. Michael Maher: How and Why Journalists Avoid Population - Environment Connection.
The consequence of the Media’s advocacy results in an Anthropocentric Masculine Insecurity legal system, which refuses to acknowledge the laws of nature: i.e. sustainable security demands that societies live in accordance to their carrying capacity, and acts and advocacy in support of breeding and consumption wars should be acknowledged as ACTS OF WAR.. However Anthropocentric legal doctrine ignores the laws of nature, believing that the earth is flat, resources are infinite, and everyone has the inalienable right to be a breeding war or consumption war combatant, pretending breeding and consumption war combatants are ‘innocent’.
 In April 2012, complainant informed 1,384 Norwegian Editors and Journalists of her EcoFeminist support for Breivik’s right to a free and fair, in an Application to the Oslo District Court to proceed as an Ecocentric Amicus Curiae.
The proposed Amicus would provide the court with – among others - a Laws of Nature perspective how Masculine Insecurity was a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for most of the worlds problems, due to obstructing Radical Transparency communication problem solving, and being the cognitive foundation of the anti-Meritocratic Bullshit the Public Relations communication paradigm.
Anthropocentric Flat Earth Society law views the world from a fundamentalist inaccurate masculine insecurity human-centred perspective, assuming there will always be “enough” Non Renewable Natural Resources (NNR‘s) to enable a brighter future, concerning itself with production and distribution of NNR‘s for ever improving material living standards for ever-increasing numbers of our ever-expanding global population. From an Ecocentric Finite Resource Scarcity perspective, Peak NNR: Overpopulation and Overconsumption of NNR’s shall result in the impending collapse of industrial civilization, which cannot exist without these resources (Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston)
 Masculine Insecurity of Norwegian Elite’s Political Psychiatry Silencing of Breivik’s Heresy: “The inquisition is to heresy, as psychiatry is to mental illness.”
Both applications also provided extensive evidence of how Politics is a dispute about the power or authority to define other people's reality, and that Political Correctness is a symptom of the Political elite’s use of Psychiatry to enforce Political Correct conformity. Psychiatry is an agent of, or a state mechanism of, social control to enforce Political and State power; which often allows for social control and coercion of Political Correct Conformity outside of the criminal justice system. Information included International Experts who argued that “there is no such thing as mental illness, or a mental disorder”, its all just about social control, PC “value judgements and cultural norms”; based upon “horoscope chart science” and Pharma-Psychiatry‘s Humpty Dumpty definition of “insanity” and “disorder”.
25 May 2012: Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law)
I contacted the editors of Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG requesting:
 Your Editors decision-making justification for censorship of the Norway v. Breivik Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection documentation provided to your publication in 13 May 2012 email: Breivik Acquittal Justified by Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings?
 (a) The total number of articles published by your publication either in print or online which refer to Breivik’s alleged “insanity”; and (b) the number of these articles which - for fairness, impartiality and scientific objectivity - include a “Critical Psychiatry” perspective, such as: “The Myth of Mental Illness”, the Marketing of Madness, the use of Psychiatry as social control, and Psychiatrists Legal Testimony being equivalent to that of “Whores of the Court”: “psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts… the science behind it all is nonexistent”.
 The total amount of advertising revenue received by your publication from Pharmaceutical Corporations per year, over the past five years.
18 June 2012: Complaint to Environment Appeals Board:
I submitted a Complaint to Environmental Appeals Board: Request for Access to Environment and Health Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Censorship in Norway’s Media: (I) Media’s Environment-Population-Terrorism Connection; (II) Norway’s Stalinesque Political Psychiatry Tyranny.
10 September 2012: Secretariat of Environmental Appeals Board Ruling:
We refer to your appeal of June 18 2012 against Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG regarding the undertakings decline to provide a justification for the decision not to publish two articles related to the incident on July 22 2011 and terrorism. We also refer to your appeal of August 16 2012 against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board regarding their refusal to provide an environmental justification for the policy to refuse complaints by e-mail.
According to the Environmental Information Act section 16 (1) "Any person is entitled to receive environmental information from undertakings such as are mentioned in section 5, sub-section 2, concerning factors related to the undertaking, including factor inputs and products, which may have an appreciable effect on the environment".
When used in the Environmental Information Act, the term "environment" means the external environment, including archaeological and architectural monuments and sites and cultural environments, cf. section 2 (2) of the act. Information regarding the social environment is thus not considered "environmental information" as the term is defined in the act. Information concerning human health, safety and living conditions, is only considered "environmental information" to the extent that these factors are or may be affected by the state of the external environment or factors that affect or may affect the environment, cf. section 2 (1).
The right to receive environmental information from undertakings is limited to information concerning factors "which may have an appreciable effect on the environment".
Concerning your first appeal, the Appeals Board for Environmental Information would like to point out that the editorial choices made by the staff working for newspapers, TV channels etc. are not factors related to the undertaking which may have an effect on the environment. The information that you have requested from Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG is thus not "environmental information".
On these grounds, the Appeals Board has made the following decision:
The appeals are denied as not justified.
The decision of the board is final and is not subject for further appeals. Disputes about the duties of undertakings according to The Environmental Information Act may be subject for legal proceedings.
Regarding your first appeal, the secretariat for the Appeals Board adds that editors` freedom to make decisions in editorial issues is granted in the Act regarding Editorial Freedom in the Media section 4.
08 October 2012: Request Clarification of ‘Environment’ Definitions:
I wrote and asked them to clarify their 'thinking':
Please could you clarify for me your reasoning viz a viz: “When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied”
It is not remotely clear to me why my complaints ‘clearly had to be denied’; unless your office is massively corrupt, like many other Norwegian government offices, on the matter of Mr. Breivik’s case and surrounding issues.
The Dept of Environment clearly encourages people to be active in holding Government Departments and corporations accountable on environmental issues:
A prerequisite for environmental law to work as intended is that the public uses it actively.
The law will put citizens able to:
* contribute to the protection of the environment
* protect against health and environmental
* influence public and private decision makers in environmental issues
According to: LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Act concerning the right to information and participation in public decision-making processes relating to the environment (environmental law).
§ 2 What is understood by environmental
(1) An environmental means factual information and reviews about
b) factors that affect or may affect the environment, including
- planned and implemented measures and activities in the environment,
- product features or content,
- Ratio of operating the business, and
- administrative decisions and actions, including individual decisions, agreements, regulations, plans, strategies and programs, and associated analyzes, calculations and assumptions,
c) human health, safety and living conditions to the extent they are or may be affected by the state of the environment or the factors mentioned in b
(2) The environment means the environment including cultural heritage.
The Aarhus Convention defines 'environmental information' as:
3. “Environmental information” means any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on:
(a) The state of elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;
(b) Factors, such as substances, energy, noise and radiation, and activities or measures, including administrative measures, environmental agreements, policies, legislation, plans and programmes, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment within the scope of subparagraph (a) above, and cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used in environmental decision-making;
(c) The state of human health and safety, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures, inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment or, through these elements, by the factors, activities or measures referred to in subparagraph (b) above;
The information requested of the Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG clearly - if you read it - falls under both LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Environmental Law and the Aarhus Convention definitions.
The information requested of Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board clearly falls under both LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Environmental Law and the Aarhus Convention definitions.
It is therefore not remotely obvious why you wrote:
"When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied, it is not necessary to ask the respondents to provide their arguments. In these cases the secretariat prepares a draft decision and consults the members of the board. If the draft decision is approved by the members of the board, no further discussion is needed. This makes the Appeals Board able to settle obvious cases without arranging unnecessary meetings. Your appeals have been settled this way. Because no meeting has taken place, you will not receive a signed decision."
Is the secretariat for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information | www.miljoklagenemnda.no | Environmental Appeals Board just a Fake PR front for Corporate whores raping the planet? Setup just to pretend Nowegian Government gives a fuck about the environment? You just sit there and rubber stamp environmental requests with " clearly have to be denied" and laugh how massively stupid the citizens are for believing the bullshit in your Duhmockery press releases that you legislate laws to encourage citizens to:
* contribute to the protection of the environment
* protect against health and environmental
* influence public and private decision makers in environmental issues
 Irregular Violation of Due Process: Irregular failure of Impartial Arbitration due process procedures
There is no evidence whatsoever to justify the Environmental Appeals Board’s decision that complainants complaint fits the decision of an Appeal that clearly had to be denied. ("When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied, it is not necessary to ask the respondents to provide their arguments.”)
The Environmental Appeal Boards conduct was that of appointing itself as legal counsel for the Respondents, instead of being impartial arbiter of the issues, subsequent to hearing the evidence of both arguments.
An impartial arbiter provides both parties with the opportunity to submit their arguments and evidence and then bases their final ruling upon the evidence submitted to it. Appointing itself as the counsel for one party, is not an indication of impartial arbitration based upon the evidence submitted to the arbiter to adjudicate the matter in accordance to the rule of law.
 Environmental Appeals Board fails to justify how the requested Population Growth and Consumptionism information requested from the Media is not ‘Environmental Information’: Population Growth and Corporate Advocacy of Consumptionism are primary factors in Resource Scarcity, Species Extinction and Environmental Degradation.
The Environmental Appeal Boards decision that the Media’s deliberate decision-making to refuse to inform the public of ‘How and Why Journalists Censor the Population-Environment Connection’ information supporting Breivik’s argument about media censorship being a contributory motivating factor for resource scarcity, social conflict and political and socio-economic problems; is not ‘Environmental information’, is beyond absurd.
Population Growth: Population growth is one of the primary, if not the primary factors contributing to species extinction, resource depletion and environmental degradation. Censorship of population growth aggravates species extinction, resource depletion, social conflict and resource wars. Population growth is a primary aggravating factor for the social conditions that pressure Muslims and Africans to emigrate to Europe to escape the overcrowded consequences of overpopulation colliding with declining resources in their own countries.
To censor information about population growth’s consequences on the environment massively aggravates population growth’s consequences on the environment.
In the same way that an oil company’s CEO’ is required to make due diligence corporate decisions to protect the environment, by securing his oil tankers from spillage; a media corporation has the same due diligence to educate their readers about information that harms the environment, whether that information is population growth, overconsumption or oil companies bad decision making.
The rule of law requires – or should require – that all corporations, including media corporations are held to the same standards of due diligence in terms of their decision making choices to harm, or protect, the environment.
Political Correct Conformist Consumptionism: Consumptionism is a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for the planets ecological problems, of which the political and economic problems are simply symptoms of the deeper ecological problems. Peak Nonrenewable Natural Resources shall result in the impending collapse of industrial civilization, which cannot exist without these resources. Consumptionism is a direct result of pharma-psychiatry’s zombification of individuals identities from being critical thinking citizens who based their purchases based upon need being converted to pacified zombie conformist consumers, whose identity was based upon their consumptionism. Pacified zombie conformist consumers are incapable of critical thinking faculties to act on behalf of defending their nations environments and natural resources from being raped and pillaged by international consumptionist corporations.
Population growth and Consumptionism is factual information (§2 (1)(a)) that directly affects not only the environment (§2 (1)(b)), but the health, safety and living conditions of all beings who live in that particular environment (§ 2(1)(c)). Corporate decision making (§ 2(1)(b)) to censor factual information (§2 (1)(a)) information about of population growth or Consumptionism, similarly directly affects not only the environment (§2 (1)(b)), but the health, safety and living conditions of all beings who live in that particular environment (§ 2(1)(c)).
According to the General Court in Luxembourg, the Aarhus Convention prevails over the EU’s own regulations about access to information, public participation, and access to justice within EU institutions. Consequently in a conflict over interpretation or definitions, the Aarhus Convention would also prevail over the Right to Environmental Information (LAW 2003-05-09 # 31).
 Editor’s and Environmental Appeals Board’s Refusal of Access to Information from Media Respondents is Contrary to Provisions of Freedom of Information Act, Right to Environmental Information Act and Aarhus Convention:
The public’s access to information includes access to information about whether any decision by a public, corporate or media official purposing to be acting ‘on behalf of informing the public’ was impartial, rational, fair, and subjectively and objectively reasonable. The Freedom of the Press does not include the freedom to refuse the public access to information about Editorial decision-making processes.
In the case of reporting on a politically sensitive trial, freedom of the press does not include the freedom to abuse the press’ publicity power on behalf of the State, by censoring information to the detriment of a free and fair trial.
The public’s access to information, includes access to information from the Respondent Editors, regarding the editorial decision making processes involved in choosing to censor from their readers the information submitted to them in the emails: Breivik Acquittal Justified by Media's Massive Censorship of Oslo Crt Proceedings?
The public’s access to Environmental Information, includes access to information about how and why the editors choose to censor population information and the consequences of such censorship upon political and social problems experienced by the public.
At the very least the media owe the public an explanation for their editorial decision-making justifications for censoring this information from the public, at this particular time, during this particular trial.
» » » » [EcoFeminist vs. Breivik]